Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
In my statement earlier this month, as Chair of the Petitions Committee I outlined the process taken by the committee to refer petitions to ministers and receive their responses. Today, I will cover a little of the history of petitioning, before discussing something more practical: how members of the public can get the full benefit of engaging with the House of Representatives through the petitioning system.
Our parliamentary tradition includes a long and rich history of petitioning. The fundamental principle of the petitioning system is the right of people to bring their matter before the Crown and the parliament and seek redress for their grievances. The United Kingdom's Westminster system can trace its petitioning origins to the reign of King Edward I in the 13th century.
The form of petitioning that is closer to what we know today developed in the late 17th century, with the House of Commons resolving that it is the 'inherent right of every commoner of England to prepare and present petitions to the House in case of grievance', and for the House to receive them.
Australia inherited this system at Federation in 1901. The first petition presented to the House of Representatives was on 21 May 1901 and called for sittings of the House to commence with a prayer. What may also be of interest is that, more than a century later in 2009, a petition, with almost 7,000 signatories, was received in support of retaining the Lord's Prayer at the start of the House's sittings.
A couple of the most unusual petitions received by the House were the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963, from the Yirrkala people regarding land rights. They were presented on traditionally decorated bark and have great historical and cultural significance. These petitions are significant early steps in the path that led to the statutory acknowledgement of Aboriginal land rights by the Commonwealth in 1976 and the overturning of the doctrine of terra nullius in the High Court's Mabo decision of 1992.
Madam Speaker, as you are aware, in 2008 the system for petitioning the House was revitalised with changes to standing orders for petitions. These changes included:
All petitions—whether they are later to be presented by me as chair at 10 am on a sitting Monday or by a member—must first be considered by the Petitions Committee to ensure they meet the standing order requirements for petitions to the House.
Prospective petitioners who seek assistance early in the process (before collecting signatures) will be in the best position to ensure that their petitions will meet the House’s requirements and get the full benefits of petitioning the House—an airing of their issue and a considered response to their concerns.
If a petition does not meet these requirements, the committee will have to find that it is ‘out of order’, and it will not be presented in the House as a petition or referred to a minister.
However, the committee is not merely a gatekeeper for petitions; it takes very seriously its responsibility to assist members of the public, prospective petitioners and members of parliament to understand and access the petitioning system.
The committee provides a range of helpful information on its webpages to assist prospective petitioners in preparing and submitting petitions. The committee also has a dedicated inquiry email and telephone line, providing information and guidance to prospective petitioners. Before starting to collect signatures, prospective petitioners can seek feedback on draft petitions to help ensure that they meet the standing order requirements of the House. This is a worthwhile service that many petitioners may choose to use.
The information on the committee’s webpage and the information received by phone and email has helped people to better understand the petition requirements and has played a role in increasing the number of petitions that are found to be ‘in order’, and so are presented to the House and referred to the relevant ministers.
The committee is keen for members of the public to understand the benefits and requirements of the House petitioning process, to help Australians exercise their well-established right to bring and have their grievances received by the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I wish to make a statement on the committee's round table on drones and privacy.
Although drones have the potential to add great value to the Australian economy, widespread use of drones also raises serious privacy issues that will need to be resolved. Drones—or remotely piloted aircraft systems—are being seen more and more often in Australia's skies. The technology behind drones is advancing quickly and, as they become cheaper and more capable, larger numbers of Australian consumers and businesses are likely to start using them.
To get a clearer view of the privacy issues widespread drone usage might raise, my committee began its investigation with a round table discussion on Friday, 28 February, in Canberra. The round table heard a broad range of views about the challenges drones pose for air safety regulation, the huge range of useful applications drones might have and the ways in which Australia's existing privacy laws might struggle to cope with widespread drone use. Round table participants told the committee about the problems that drones in the wrong hands could cause in Australian airspace. The committee heard from industry representatives that they are increasingly being used by untrained operators. The committee also heard that commercial operators are using drones in violation of—or with complete ignorance of—Civil Aviation Safety Authority rules and regulations regarding remotely piloted aircraft systems. These factors raise serious safety concerns.
Round table participants also told the committee that drone use has revealed gaps and complexities in Australia's privacy laws. A range of common law, Commonwealth, state and territory privacy surveillance and anti-stalking legislation might be relevant to drone use, but the laws differ from state to state. This causes confusion about what is against the law and what is not, which is difficult for both members of the public and drone operators. There are also questions of individuals' access to remedies for breaches of their privacy. Of course, drones are just one of many emerging technologies that could raise serious privacy issues. Having said that, drones are a specific problem given their availability, their ease of operation and their capacity to go places people might not want them to, all the while recording footage or taking photographs.
The commercial and civil applications of drones are numerous, and the economic benefits they bring to the Australian economy are compelling. Drones will play an important role in fields as varied as mining, scientific research, emergency management, policing, media and much more in coming years. However, to maximise the opportunities of this technology, Australia will have to come to grips with the regulatory problems that remotely piloted aircraft systems raise.
The committee takes the view that these issues warrant further investigation. As a result, the committee will be conducting a further round table discussion in Brisbane on Friday this week, with the hope of shedding some more light on these issues. The committee will then report back to the House with the aim of drawing attention to the regulatory and privacy problems that drone use may cause so that Australia is well placed to maximise the commercial, civil and recreational opportunities drones will provide.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We have limited time on this earth. Time for all of us is limited. Indeed, time is the enemy in our lives—our time in this place and our time to recognise the shortcomings and inadequacy of the system to see what can be done to change that and to make our life and the life of all Australians better. The government was elected over six months ago. There were a lot of competing priorities for the Prime Minister and all ministers of the government. During the past six months there has been serious hardship suffered by Australians due to drought, bushfires and radical changes in the economic future of this country.
Government, by its very nature, is slow to act, and parliament is slower to take action. But when there is an actual disaster and major economic needs, then the response of government needs to be better than it is. The financial muscle of the Commonwealth has really been flexed to assist Australians in a time of need. All of us are diminished by the injustice that has been done to many Australians because the system of government has been slow to respond. I realise I am but one member of this House and that in introducing this bill I cannot be sure that it will get the support of the government or the opposition. But I hope it can. It is not meant to be critical of government or the opposition. It is not about Liberal policy or Labor policy; it is about the right policy. It is not about getting political kudos; it is more about realising we need to do better.
This bill is not a financial measure. It is merely to pursue an idea that this House should establish a parliamentary committee to investigate and report back to the House on the establishment of Australia Fund, which would be a body rather than a fund, and would have the resources of the Commonwealth to act decisively in time of need, to determine what needs to be done to ensure that when natural disasters such as droughts, bushfires or floods are encountered, there are automatic measures in place to ensure Australians do not have to wait for the government to take action.
Suicide is often a companion of misfortune; when Australians lose hope in the future, they are isolated and overcome with a feeling of guilt and responsibility of their families and children. If we act more decisively, more lives can be saved.
This bill is to investigate the response time for government to mobilise and to consider how we can dramatically improve the best and most responsible responses. It took the government over six months to respond to the current drought. I am not convinced the opposition would have been any quicker. It is not about blame. I know the minister and the government did all they thought they could do in the circumstances. When we consider the current drought assistance package announced by the government, the question has to be asked: could it have been more inclusive and been targeted at a wider industry and more communities? The package seems to be targeted at beef and sheep properties. I commend the government for providing it, but there are more things to consider than cattle and sheep. Most rural towns and businesses rely on their trade, employment and small-scale manufacturing of the rural industries to support them. There are many rural properties that are involved in primary production that have not received any real assistance at all. I do not think this was by design of the government but the government's advice, or any government advice may have been limited. It is time this House investigated if Australia can handle these situations better for the benefit of all Australians and the taxpayer.
There are many challenges to face to ensure that economic policy in manufacturing is encouraged in this country, that Australia does what it does best and that government policy does not cause businesses to go broke. Our enterprises need, for legitimate reasons, to become more efficient and viable in the future. If they suffer some temporary disadvantage due to an adverse or unfair government policy or inaction, then the resolution of such issues are not dependent on the political process; rather we would have a proactive group which, once established, can act decisively, if needed, to preserve Australia's interest.
The fact remains that the Australian government is the No. 1 petitioner of bankruptcies and company liquidations in this county and the No. 1 destroyer of jobs and enterprises. If business could continue to trade—and jobs not be lost—the government and the taxpayer would be the winners. It does not make sense for the government to move people from productive employment to unemployment and Centrelink when their enterprise can continue and be sold to more capable management.
If you look at the productivity of Australia today compared with yesterday, the Productivity Commission has a lot to answer for. Government needs sound advice not just from academics but from experienced wealth creators to form common-sense policies. The bill is just for this House to allow the setting up of a group of the House to consider these issues and report back to the House. The purpose of this bill is to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate establishing the Australia Fund. Such a fund would be designed to support and assist reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in times of crisis, including natural disasters such as drought floods and bushfires, world financial crises and unfair market intervention or manipulation.
It is envisaged that the Australia Fund would have the ability, on the basis of an assessment of industry or business, to: provide emergency relief and ongoing assistance in the event of drought, flood or bushfire; loan money to businesses; act as a guarantor for loans; capitalise; waive interest; purchase existing bank loans; and assume control of relevant property of businesses for a specified time. In this way, the body would be designed to enable business to continue operations, earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes rather than being prematurely wound up. It would support communities affected by natural disasters.
It would also provide funds for industry and company restructuring and the acquisition of new technologies to make businesses more viable and internationally competitive. As part of its investigation as to the need for the fund, the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres, and would specifically examine the impact on rural Australia of the ongoing drought and world market price fluctuations for primary industry production.
The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist governments to trade through difficult times, rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy will also be reviewed. The possible introduction of an equivalent of the United States chapter 11 provisions would also be investigated.
A ministry of support to the committee could be provided by the House or Senate departments. At the completion of its inquiry, the committee would table before parliament its detailed report and its findings and recommendations. I commend the bill to the House.
I think the initiative by the new and honourable member for Fairfax is very timely, very pressing. Some dozen suicides have occurred in the six months in which we have waited for an assistance package, and there is not a single person in any of the rural industries that considers the package that is out there now adequate. I am not saying this by way of condemnation of the government; I will not hesitate to condemn the government. I join the member for Fairfax in saying that where there are complex issues that the very new government do not understand, they have to get their heads around them and act in a more responsible manner.
There is an inquiry taking place on the GFC. That money had to go out there quickly, very quickly. If we had this fund then that money would not have had to go out there quickly. A young man in my electorate, in the Atherton area, was a very inexperienced worker who died in a crawl space putting batts in; he would not have died if this had been in place. If this had been in place, a number of those suicides that took place in Queensland would not have taken place. Whilst I am pointing to the very sharp end of the issue, there is no doubt in my mind that not all of the motor vehicle industry can be saved but at least one of those companies could definitely be saved by using government contracts. There is not the slightest question about that. And that is done in every other country on earth. But we need something to buy time so that those huge factories that are set up are not lost, and all the technology and know-how dissipated. This is a buying-time operation.
We got black sigatoka. By the time the money was marshalled, the amount of money needed to suppress the disease had gone up 10-fold. So instead of needing $10 million to deal with three farms, because of the time frame of deciding how it could be done, nearly 200 farms had to be addressed. Whilst I have been vehement in my criticism of the government, trying desperately to put pressure on them to move quickly, I can see the mistakes they have already made in acting in what they would probably consider precipitously. We could avoid that situation by an emergency fund, a buying-time fund—whatever you want to call it. There is an enormous requirement for a general fund for this purpose. At the present moment the three great industries that comprise nearly half of our exports in this country are aluminium, iron ore and coal. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the proud naval shipbuilding history of Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) the ability to build and maintain naval ships is essential to our national defence capability;
(b) over 4,000 skilled workers are currently employed in the Naval Shipbuilding Industry throughout Australia, most notably in Port Adelaide, Williamstown, Sydney, the Hunter and Henderson;
(c) as current contracted work reaches the end of the production phase, these jobs and shipyards will begin to come under threat; and
(d) once these jobs and skills are lost, it will be very difficult for the industry to be re-established; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue the work begun by the last Government and to provide additional Commonwealth contracts to ensure that these jobs and valuable skills are not lost.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I move this motion regarding the future of the naval shipbuilding industry because it is an industry that is vital to our national defence capability. It is an industry that is essential for a maritime nation. It is also an industry that employs between 4,000 and 5,000 workers directly in regions such as the Hunter Valley, Melbourne, Adelaide, Western Australia and in Sydney. It is an industry that we must have in this country if we are to retain our national sovereignty. Four to five thousand workers are employed in this industry. There are many communities that depend on it, including in the Hunter Valley, where 900 workers at Forgacs have their direct future at stake in regard to the shipbuilding contract. If these contracts do not appear, the impact on local communities is going to be massive.
This industry is vital to our defence capability. Once it is lost it will be very hard to rebuild. A recent ANAO report into the air-warfare destroyer program commented that some of the challenges we are now facing in that program are a result of the shipbuilding industry being driven down after the completion of the Anzac frigate program in the early years of the last decade. This is an opportunity to learn from these lessons—to get it right and really put the industry on a sustainable basis. We need to be careful of unfair international comparisons on this industry. Some people will be tempted to look at how overseas industries perform and talk about effective rates of assistance. What is never mentioned in this context is that the shipbuilding companies they are compared to overseas are usually government owned and massively subsidised and often benefit from very long production runs that we do not have the benefit of in this country. We have a need to build 40 major naval vessels in the next 20 years, and I would submit that it is much better to have a smoother production cycle where the industry can plan and can build and maintain its workforce so that it has a sustainable future rather than a stop-start process, where at the moment 4,000 families are under threat.
Labor took a solution to the last election, which was to bring forward two supply ships and guarantee a certain amount of work to be done in Australia. We also talked about possibly looking at the patrol boat replacement. There are other options, including building a fourth air-warfare destroyer or in fact bringing forward the new frigate replacement and building that on the AWD hull, with simplified systems. I was pleased to note the positive comments made two weeks ago by the Minister for Defence. This should be a bipartisan solution. I am hopeful that those noises turn into concrete action, because we need to work together. Too many manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country recently, especially in the last three months. We have a proud shipbuilding legacy in this country. The Anzac class frigates were built on time and on budget. The minehunters built by Thales, up in Newcastle, performed very well. Also, despite some early teething problems, even the Collins class submarines present the best diesel capabilities in the world and have an excellent performance record. For example, in the US they scrapped the first example built of a new class of submarine, because of welding problems. By comparison, the Collins class is performing very well.
We need concrete action. I am very pleased that we have three speakers from the other side speaking on this motion. Hopefully they will come to this issue with a constructive approach. I pay tribute to the vigorous campaigning being done by local Labor MPs, including the members for Gellibrand, Newcastle and Port Adelaide, all of whom have shipyards in their electorate and are campaigning for local jobs.
This is a vital industry—900 families in the Hunter Valley depend on it, as do four to five thousand families around the country. We need this defence capability. We are a maritime nation and we need to be able to build and maintain our great vessels here, otherwise our sovereignty will suffer. I look forward to the contributions from others in this debate. I assure everyone that if we do not get concrete action this campaign will get more and more fierce, because our national sovereignty depends on it.
We do have a proud history in shipbuilding, having built many great warships in the past. But we also had a proud history in the manufacture of horse-drawn carts, thermionic valves and a host of other industries that no longer exist. Indeed, Whyalla ceased shipbuilding in the 1970s. We need to allow our industries the opportunity to innovate. Rent-seeking simply sucks up money and inevitably the rent-seeking industries die, despite the use of public monies to try to prop them up.
Our nation's defence, and spending on defence capability, must not be a vehicle to provide for sheltered workshops in any industry. It is important to note that the current crisis in shipbuilding is a result of Labor's gutting of our defence budget by $18 billion over the next decade and pushing time lines and schedules to the right. Indeed, Labor left defence in such a mess that we need to get a new white paper and defence capability plan drafted. It is essential that the industry meet appropriate productivity benchmarks, to ensure that the industry does not get fat at the taxpayers' expense, as has been the case so often in the past.
As I have said, industry needs to innovate, not simply rely on Australian defence contracts to see it through. There is a clear example of this innovation in my home state of Western Australia. Austal have won contracts for littoral combat ships against the best shipbuilders in the world, not because of the largesse of the Australian taxpayer propping them up but because their products are highly innovative and they have developed a reputation for reliability and innovation. Austal also have contracts with the United States Navy for 10 Joint High Speed Vessels.
There was discussion about the issue of submarines, which is very problematic. For our next submarine, there is no conventional submarine in the world at the moment that can meet our requirements, meaning that we will have an orphan submarine capability. People might think we can just use a European sub, but you need to increase the air-conditioning load significantly, simply because of the temperature of the waters that we operate in versus, for instance, the North Atlantic. This alone means that you need a substantial redesign of the boat.
In my view, we should consider purchasing Virginia class submarines from the United States Navy, which would allow us to look at some of the niche capabilities that we have in Australia. For instance, some of our sonar capabilities are absolutely groundbreaking. These could go into not only our boats but the US boats as well, which would then give us a clear spiral upgrade path. We might not be making the boats in Australia, but we would have the ability to do shallow-level maintenance of not only our submarines but also the United States Navy submarines that operate in our area.
Let us take a leaf out of Austal's book. Looking at the technologies available, Sonartech Atlas have two sonar systems, called PIPRS and SAAPS, that are world-leading technologies that have been picked up by the Americans and the Europeans. We will never be cutting edge with conventional shipbuilding. We will always be paying over the odds in Australia for conventional capabilities as we do not have the critical mass, the volume of work, required to continue shipbuilding ad infinitum. According to the ANAO, the effective rate of assistance is over 30 per cent for indigenous shipbuilding. Treasury believe the premium to be over $1 billion. That is from the ANAO's Audit report No. 22 2013-14: Air Warfare Destroyer Program.
Once, we designed and built our own fighters and bombers. Then we just made fighters. Now we simply buy them already constructed. The reason for this is that they become more complex and the numbers purchased reduced, leading to issues of critical mass. The same thing has recently occurred with our car industry. Let us be innovative rather than simply harking back to the past.
I thank the member for Charlton and the member for Gellibrand for bringing this important motion to the House. I also thank members on the other side—even though I might not agree with many of the comments from the member for Tangney—for joining in this very important debate.
As the member for Port Adelaide, the importance of retaining our shipbuilding industry is of particular significance to me and the constituents that I represent in this place. Port Adelaide has an incredibly proud history of shipbuilding, which dates back to the early 1800s, when HC Fletcher established his shipyard at Birkenhead, in the port. The port was one of South Australia's earliest settlements and continues to be the main service point for South Australian shipping. The schooner Jane Flaxman was launched at Port Adelaide in 1839, only three years after the settlement of South Australia. It is true that there have always been peaks and troughs in the demand for our shipbuilders in the more than 150 years that we have been building them in Port Adelaide, and this was particularly the case after the two world wars of the 20th century, when there was a shortage of ships in Australia due to wartime losses and to a downturn in shipbuilding.
Today, at Osborne, near Port Adelaide, there is the home of the Australian Submarine Corporation, or the ASC as it is now known, the main shipbuilder for the three Hobart class Aegis air warfare destroyers—the largest Defence project ever undertaken in Australia. More than 1,500 AWD workers are based in Adelaide and there are a number of other spin-offs as well. Just one example is Le Fevre High School, in the Port Adelaide electorate. Le Fevre high is developing itself as a maritime high school, utilising the new trades training centre that was built under the last Labor government. This means, for example, that students at Le Fevre high today can learn skills in shipbuilding or engineering and move straight from school into apprenticeships at ASC, providing them potentially with great jobs for their entire working lives until retirement, just on the basis of the submarine building and maintenance program that Labor committed to. Similar stories exist in other schools—in the western suburbs, the member for Hindmarsh's electorate, and in my electorate in the north-western suburbs and the northern suburbs.
South Australia and the Port Adelaide electorate in particular fared very well under the former federal and state Labor governments when it came to defence jobs. South Australia currently has 25 per cent of all of the nation's defence work, in a state that represents only seven to eight per cent of the population. These jobs would be sustained and many more would be created with the former federal Labor government's commitment to replace the Collins class and double our fleet with the Future Submarine project, a commitment to acquiring 12 future submarines and assembling them in Port Adelaide. As well, the former Rudd government committed to bringing forward tenders for the replacement of patrol boats and two supply ships, HMAS Sirius and HMAS Success, to address the so-called valley of death—the period between work finishing on the AWDs and beginning on the future submarines. This commitment is vital for shipbuilding in the Port Adelaide electorate, vital for protecting the jobs of thousands of workers and retaining shipbuilding skills in our state and vital for Williamstown, the Hunter and elsewhere.
Six months after the election, though, we have had no such commitment from the new government, a deafening silence that is causing very deep unease in South Australia. My colleagues the members for Charlton and Gellibrand, who raised this motion, share my concerns. In Newcastle, Forgacs will have to lay off 900 staff by the end of this year if the government do not announce new shipbuilding projects, and more than 1,000 jobs are at risk at BAE Systems at Williamstown in Melbourne. This is not just a question of jobs, as important obviously as they are to those families and to those communities; it is critical for our long-term national security that these vital naval shipbuilding skills be retained and nurtured.
The last member to speak in this debate, the member for Tangney, compared this to the closure of the Whyalla shipyards, the shipyards that build commercial ships. Frankly, that misunderstands the strategic importance of having naval shipbuilding skills in an island nation like Australia. Port Adelaide's rich history as one of the nation's earliest shipbuilding sites must not be let down by this government. Our shipbuilding industry is far too important. Our national security as an island nation is far too important, and it is beyond time that this government acted.
The member for Port Adelaide referred to the air warfare destroyers and the ASC—quite rightly; it is a fantastic project. It is a project that the member for Port Adelaide well knows was actually committed to, signed off and funded by the last Liberal Howard government—a project worth over $8 billion. It provides jobs around Australia. The member for Charlton mentioned the jobs in his electorate at BAE Systems in Williamstown. It is a nation-building project. These are the sorts of projects that are of real value to our country.
The defence projects which were funded by the last coalition government include the SEA 4000 phase 3, the Armidale patrol boats and the SEA 1444, and we in this House all know that it is important to understand the time frame required in the venture of shipbuilding: when it starts and when you have the people in the dockyard cutting the steel and integrating the systems. This does not happen overnight. This takes years. This takes money and contracts.
It also provides spillover effects to our economy, gaining knowledge, fostering innovation and improving skills, so I think we all agree on the importance of shipbuilding in our country. But let us return to the comments of the member for Port Adelaide about the 2009 white paper and the 12 submarines to be built in South Australia. We found no money dedicated, we found no contracts signed and here we are five years later. This is the problem: we have not got the projects in place. We have not got the money committed. There was inaction, and I think the members opposite would acknowledge this fact. There was inaction in their last Labor government that has led us to this situation today—the valley of death.
I was working on this with colleagues both state and federal last year getting together relevant industry groups; the Defence Teaming Centre in Adelaide, Defence SA, which is doing a wonderful job; and David Johnston, who was the shadow minister at the time. We worked together on the future submarines project. I spoke about this in an economics submission I provided. It is valuable not just to South Australia but to Australia and to jobs throughout our country, and we will be working hard to get the best benefit for Australia from that massive project.
I also want to touch on the government's plan in terms of what we have done in the defence sector. As is well known, we have committed to no further cuts to overall defence spending within a decade and to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP. In Adelaide just last week we also made some announcements on the Triton unarmed aerial vehicles. That is a $100 million maintenance commitment in South Australia. There is also the $78 million work for BAE Systems for the Air Force's Wedgetail aircraft, which will provide jobs in Newcastle, Brisbane, Ipswich and Adelaide—jobs around Australia.
Once again, these nation-building projects are vital to our defence sector. We had Labor, which was all talk and no action, lacking commitment and delaying decisions. Let me give some facts. We have 100 projects being delayed. We had 40 projects being reduced and 11 projects being cancelled. The Labor opposition cannot sit here today and say, 'It's all their fault.' They have to look into history, into what happened in the last six years of Labor government. A lack of commitment and lack of projects left us in the tough position we have now with financial pressures, a budget deficit and less money to spend on projects that we would like.
One of the projects I would like to touch on briefly is the JP 2048, which involved amphibious watercraft replacement. This project was one that had every opportunity to be manufactured and supported in Australia, but these jobs went to Spain. You did not see the Labor Party saying, 'Let's have these jobs in Australia.' They went to Spain. The units were manufactured in Spain. That is what we have to appreciate. We have had the opportunity in the past to put projects into Australia, and they have gone elsewhere. That is why with the next generation of submarines it is so important to have as much of the work done around Australia—in Newcastle, in Williamstown and in Adelaide at ASC—as we can. I know from visits to my electorate by the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, and the Prime Minister that they are always well received when they come to my electorate. The electorate knows the coalition is committed to defence and committed to reinvigorating the funding to defence and defence projects. That is why we on our side can feel proud of our history and proud of where we are going in the future.
The member for Hindmarsh says the Prime Minister is well received in his electorate. We have not seen anything of him in Melbourne's west. My constituents have been waiting for action since the election of the Abbott government, but they have been left in limbo by the Abbott government's recent actions. Two-thousand five-hundred workers at the Toyota plant in Altona have been waiting for over a month for answers on how they are going to provide for their families after Toyota's closure in 2016. Hundreds of workers who supply Toyota with component parts are waiting anxiously as well to see if their government will introduce an innovation fund to bring new manufacturing firms to Melbourne's west so that their businesses will have enough work to continue operating.
But the community that is waiting with bated breath the most is the shipbuilding community—in particular, the over 1,000 workers at the BAE Systems shipyard in Williamstown. They are currently finishing construction on the Landing Helicopter Dock Ship project and the Air Warfare Destroyer project, the last of the major defence projects currently contracted to BAE Systems at Williamstown.
These workers are an essential source of technical skill for Australia's defence industry. With their expertise we are able to have a shipbuilding industry that can create the warships uniquely suited to Australian conditions. With their skills we can make sure that the warships that defend Australia are built in the shipyards they will be defending. These skills are too valuable to waste, particularly when considering Australia's long-term defence needs.
With the replacement of Australia's Armidale class patrol boats and submarines, and the frigate project needed in the near future, there is plenty of shipbuilding work required by the Australian Navy. There are around 40 ships planned for the coming decades. But none of these contracts have yet been signed and no commitments have been made by this government. So the shipyards are left waiting patiently as the clock ticks closer to the completion of their current contracts. As we near this completion date, the shipyards can wait patiently no longer.
Without these new defence contracts, the Williamstown shipyards will be forced to close. The much talked about 'valley of death' for the Williamstown shipyards has now arrived. Without a decision by the Abbott government in a matter of weeks, over 1,000 skilled workers will lose their jobs. This future is no longer a hypothetical; this is reality. It was flagged initially by BAE Systems spokesman Simon Latimer who said:
We need to make a decision about the long term future of our naval shipbuilding business by the second quarter of the year.
That is this year, and:
Work needs to be brought forward that will secure the medium and long term future of the yard.
This urgency was then reiterated by CEO, David Allott, at a recent speech to the Australian Defence Magazine conference, stating that unless further work is provided:
… we will have to start laying people off again at the end of this quarter and close the shipyard at the end of 2015.
Time is of the essence. BAE Systems could not be sending a clearer message. They need the Abbott government to sign contracts by the end of this month. They are not looking for government subsidies or support, just contracts for the work that the Australian government has already committed to publicly. They need work from some of the multitude of shipbuilding contracts that our Navy currently requires or they will be forced to close and lay off over 1,000 highly skilled workers. They can no longer wait patiently for these contracts while the Abbott government stalls and stonewalls. They need action now.
The Abbott government seems content, however, to lose our shipbuilding industry, as it has lost our car-manufacturing industry, by doing nothing at all. In the recent Senate estimates hearings, defence minister, David Johnson in the other place, gave no guarantees that defence contracts from the government would be forthcoming. Instead, he promised another defence white paper, to be delivered in no more than 12 months time—12 months, when workers are counting their futures in weeks and days! The arrogance of the Abbott government on this issue is staggering. Moreover, defence minister Johnson stated openly that the likelihood of funding these projects was questionable. He stated:
There is no money for these things. We have to rob Peter to pay Paul …
This is despite the Abbott government's promise to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP in 10 years and their current acquisition of up to $3 billion of drones for maritime surveillance, without blinking an eyelid. It seems the shipyard workers are, indeed, 'waiting for Godot'; waiting for an Abbott government to deliver these workers that will never arrive.
The Abbott government needs to stop being an opposition party, wilfully ignoring what it cannot handle, and start being a government that stands up for the workers of Williamstown and Melbourne's west. As the CEO of BAE Systems said, 'Planning for success will require timely and courageous decisions, not only from industry but also from government.' Let us see some timeliness and courage from the Abbott government. It is time for this government to end the wait and to secure the future of over 1,000 jobs at the Williamstown shipyards. It is time for the former Leader of the Opposition to become a prime minister, and start showing some leadership on Australian jobs.
I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak on the motion moved by the member for Charlton. I think it is very important to provide some context here in relation to defence spending and the various approaches to defence management that we saw under the previous government and under this one.
Of course, defence is the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government, and it is pleasing to see the interest of the member for Charlton in it, but it is very important to note the very poor treatment of Defence under the previous government. In fact, we are now in a position where, as a proportion of GDP, Australia is spending the lowest amount on Defence since 1939. That is some 75 years ago and it is an unacceptable situation. That is why the Abbott government has committed to making no further cuts to Defence spending and to getting Defence spending back to two per cent of GDP within a decade. The white paper process that we are working through at the moment will be critical to future projects. What the government is doing, in a methodical, careful and judicious fashion, is working through all of the issues related to Australia's Defence capability, including shipbuilding and many other issues. That white paper process will then report and the government will act upon those considered recommendations.
You have to contrast that, though, with the approach to Defence white papers under the previous government. In the Defence white paper back in 2009, the government solemnly said it would increase Defence spending by three per cent per year through to 2017-18 and then 2.2 per cent thereafter. Understandably, people in the Defence industry within Australia took some comfort from that. They said: 'This is good. The government has set out a clear commitment in relation to Defence spending.' But, of course, what happened was very, very different. What we actually saw was a cut in Defence spending of five per cent in 2010-11 and then 10.5 per cent in 2012, which was the largest proportional cut in the Defence budget since the Korean War. How could it help Australian Defence industries when, for politically expedient reasons, the former government hacked into Defence spending? The consequences included having 100 projects delayed, 40 projects reduced and 11 projects cancelled under the previous government. Obviously, these tend to be quite substantial projects given the nature of Defence, and that ad hoc approach to Defence expenditure was very damaging for the sector.
As I said, I acknowledge the interest of the member for Charlton in this matter, but the member for Charlton—perhaps in his previous role working with the previous member for Charlton, who, after all, was the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science—should have used his advocacy skills in that role, spoken to his boss and said: 'Look, you know these drastic cuts to Defence spending that you're sitting around the cabinet table planning? Don't do it, because it's not in the interests of the Australian military.' I am sure there were many discussions internally, but, unfortunately, he was unable to carry the day on those issues and those cuts did occur. They have been very substantial and very damaging.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Indeed, we are in government, as the member for Charlton interjects, and that is a good thing because it means that, in a careful and methodical fashion, through the white paper process, the government will assess all of their very complex matters related to Defence funding and make appropriate decisions as we go through that. When the previous government came into office, 5.7 per cent of government outlays were in Defence. By the end, it was 4.9 per cent. That is a very substantial change as a proportion of government expenditure. We all acknowledge the significance of Defence and Defence planning and the government is committed to it.
Debate adjourned.
I seek leave to amend the private member's motion relating to Ukraine in the terms circulated to honourable members.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That this House:
(1) expresses its grave concerns regarding the situation in Ukraine, and in particular, the referendum held in Crimea on Sunday 16 March, which was not authorised by the Ukrainian Parliament and therefore cannot form the legitimate basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea;
(2) calls on the:
(a) Russian government to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, withdraw its troops and keep open the channels for critical dialogue;
(b) Government of Ukraine to continue to exercise restraint in the face of provocation; and
(3) acknowledges the steps taken by the Australian Government in support of a peaceful resolution to the dispute.
The situation in Ukraine remains serious, with the potential for military confrontation. The decision by Crimean authorities to hold a referendum on the territory's future is deeply unhelpful. The Ukrainian government has been clear that the vote is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution. The vote was carried out with great haste, with little time for effective preparation and with no independent election observers. Australia has called on Russia to cease and desist from its blatantly aggressive actions against another sovereign nation—specifically, to stop actions in support of this flawed referendum, to withdraw its military forces in Ukraine back to their bases and to engage constructively with the government of Ukraine to map out a peaceful way forward that takes into account the safety and security of all Ukrainians.
Russia must respect international law. Russia's actions violate Ukraine's sovereignty and are an attack on Ukraine's territorial integrity. These actions are a clear violation of Russia's international legal obligations, including, most fundamentally, the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force. These are not the actions of a responsible and senior member of the international community.
It is timely that I update the House on Australia's actions to date. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has been very strong in her actions to date. On 3 March, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the visit to Russia by the Minister for Trade and Investment and the visit to Australia by the secretary of Russia's security council. The foreign minister issued a media release on 2 March regarding the unacceptability of Russia's actions, stating clearly Australia's unequivocal support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the importance of urgent dialogue to step back from this crisis. The foreign minister has underlined those views, as has the Prime Minister, in media interviews and in parliament.
On 3 March the secretary of DFAT called in the Russian ambassador at the foreign minister's request to convey to him Australia's views in clear terms and ensure that those views are sent directly to the Russian government. Australia has addressed the issue in the United Nations Security Council, of which we are a member.
In addition, Minister Bishop, jointly with Minister Morrison, issued a media release on 5 March, announcing that Ukrainian nationals in Australia on visas that are due to expire and who may be affected by the unrest in Ukraine will be able to apply for an extension to their visas. Any United Nations Security Council action censuring Russia, including a resolution, requires agreement of the five permanent members of the council. Although Russia can oppose any proposal for the UNSC action, as we saw on Saturday, 15 March, Russia has been isolated in the UN Security Council. Australia is encouraging UN Secretary-General Ban to continue to exercise the role of his good offices.
The situation is clearly untenable, and the foreign minister has been working hard, particularly in relation to Australia's temporary position on the United Nations Security Council and closely with the United Kingdom and with other Security Council members, not only in relation to Ukraine but on other issues in the region as well that will have a great impact. There have been very productive discussions by the foreign minister with foreign minister William Hague and also with the British National Security Council. Particularly, the foreign minister has been working to learn about the EU's perspective on the United Kingdom, on Russia's intervention in the Ukraine and on the referendum.
There are some deeply flawed issues in this whole process—firstly, the way the referendum has been conducted, as I mentioned. There is no provision in the Ukrainian constitution for a regional referendum on the question of succession, so it is unconstitutional. Secondly, why are there Russian troops in Crimea? There is a suggestion that there is an enormous level of intimidation of the people by having those troops present at the same time as a referendum. There are many, many issues that need to be considered here.
There have been a number of international experts in this area—including Ali Amidi, who recently wrote an online piece about all of the arguments, legal and otherwise, that Russia has been putting forward. And I want to go through some of those. One of the legal arguments Russia has resorted to is that it is ready to exercise military intervention in the Ukraine in order to save the lives of ethnic Russian people in Crimea and the Ukraine. This was mentioned in a letter that was sent to the Russian parliament by Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials, who have also frequently had cause to emphasise this. But this argument is very, very flawed, because the ethnic Russian people living in Ukraine and Crimea are not considered Russian nationals. So Russia is not legally authorised to resort to saving citizens and trying to find a way to protect them. Also, these people are not facing the threat of discrimination, criminal acts against them or any other major risks that might provide legal grounds for that justification.
Another argument the Russians put out there is that they have to support the independence-seeking drive of the Crimean people and that it backs their bid to join Russia on the basis of humanitarian grounds. This is another argument that is extremely and deeply flawed. It is deeply flawed on the basis that humanitarian intervention has to be justified on the grounds that the people of a particular country are exposed to or are at serious risk of criminal acts or discrimination. And clearly that is not the case with the ethnic Russian people living in the Ukraine, who are not facing such a situation.
Russia has a third flawed argument in going in to launch military intervention in the Ukraine and Crimea on the invitation of the country's legal president at the moment, Mr Yanukovych. And the point is, can the president still be considered the legal president of the Ukraine government in the jargon of international law? There is a difference, as Mr Amidi points out, between a de facto and a de jour government. As a result, the interim government in Kiev is hardly considered the country's de facto government in international relations, and other states usually recognise de facto governments. Therefore, were the president the legal head of state, he would not be authorised to use foreign forces in order to divide his homeland and to accept the risk of the breakout of civil war and to ensure the risk of the possible massacre of citizens in his country.
I am very proud to be standing here on behalf of the Australian parliament to put this motion forward, and also on behalf of the many thousands of Ukrainians who live in our country and are in absolute fear of what is happening in their homeland and of what is happening to their loved ones and the families. The action taken by Russia is unacceptable, and the motion put before us here today outlines the unacceptability. The situation is a very fluid one. I support the foreign minister in her actions to date, and I hope that the opposition will join me in putting forward the motion today that clearly what has happened is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution and a violation of that country's sovereignty.
I second the motion.
The referendum held in Crimea this weekend marked a heightening of an age-old tension. The east-versus-west tug of war over Ukraine and Crimea stretches back long before the Maidan protests made headlines. So I am pleased to get up and speak today in support of the motion that is before the House.
In the 18th century Crimea was one of the regions fought over by Catherine the Great's Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In the mid-19th century imperial Russia and imperial Britain's ongoing tussle for Central Asia manifested in the Crimean War. And in the early 20th century, following the Russian Revolution and civil war, the defeated and once Western-backed White Army was evacuated through Crimea. In 1954, under Soviet Premier Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian, Crimea was passed from Russia to Ukraine—a purely symbolic gesture, given that at that stage it was all a part of the USSR.
In 2004-05 the Orange Revolution saw a Western-backed government come to power, and then in 2010 the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was elected. Although at that stage the elections were described as fair, President Yanukovych subsequently imprisoned opposition figures and changed the constitution to give the office of president greater power. This history of conflict is fed by Ukraine's own demographic polarisation. Ukrainian-speaking parts in the west of the country and largely Russian-speaking parts in the east are described as having contrasting architecture, political views and even historical heroes. And election results from the past decade reveal a clear dividing line between the voting patterns in the east and the west. Last year when President Yanukovych rejected a deal for closer integration with the European Union, protests broke out in Kiev. As we know, this resulted in the government's overthrow and Russia's attempts to annex Crimea.
Half a world away in Australia some people ask what difference it makes to us here. Of course, members of the House know that we have very strong Russian and Ukrainian populations here in Australia. Both countries have been sources of migration to Australia, and many Australians of Ukrainian or Russian background have enormous concern for their friends and family who are in Ukraine at the moment.
More broadly, the dangerous stand-off in the Ukraine has serious implications for the global security environment. That means Australia should have a view, and should express its view internationally. Russia's behaviour highlights the danger of countries adopting a zero-sum game world view. President Vladimir Putin's move suggests a belief that Ukraine must choose between close ties with Europe and a good relationship with Russia. I believe that a majority of the members of this House certainly would not accept the view that Ukraine must choose between closer integration with Europe and a good relationship with Russia. The justifications offered by Russia do not match their actions. The massive troop movements, takeover of important sites, the referendum in Crimea, and the incursion into the mainland—particularly over the weekend—are clearly an excessive response to what Russia states is their concern for ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.
Unfortunately, throughout the years we have seen previous examples of this, where ordinary citizens expressing a desire for a greater say in the running of their country have their movement highjacked, so one great power can achieve a strategic victory against another. Zero-sum foreign policy thinking threatens international peace and prosperity. This includes the disregard for international law. The G7 issued a statement saying:
The annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.
The G7 added that it would be:
A clear violation of the United Nations Charter; Russia's commitments under the Helsinki Final Act; its obligations to Ukraine under its 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership; the Russian-Ukraine 1997 basing agreement; and its commitments in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
I have mentioned in the past the concern regarding the disregard of the Budapest Memorandum. This was a deal that involved Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons that were left on Ukrainian soil after the dispersal of the USSR. In return for giving up those Soviet era nuclear weapons to Russia there were commitments from the US and the UK, and of course Russia itself, that Ukraine's sovereignty and independence would be respected—and that there would be no use of force, or threat of the use of force, and that there would be no economic coercion of the Ukraine. It is very difficult to see or understand how a country can be encouraged to give up nuclear weapons, or not build them, if assurances made for the security and integrity of that country are not kept. It begs the question of why any country would give up nuclear weapons, or not build them, if those assurances are not kept.
The crisis may also have economic implications, with the repatriation of billions of dollars between the West and Russia following the threat of western sanctions. While Australia's ability to influence events in the Ukraine is somewhat limited, we can and should do a number of things. We can utilise the diplomatic leverage we have at the United Nations Security Council, to add our voice to the global calls for a diplomatic solution that adheres to international law—voting at gunpoint is not true democracy. Australia can support international efforts to apply economic means to resolve the crisis peacefully, and we can contribute to the international financial support for Ukraine.
We can, and should, and must argue very clearly that the sort of zero-sum thinking we have seen recently in the Ukraine is not the way to see foreign relations. These sentiments were echoed by Secretary of State Kerry earlier in the conflict. Win-win solutions are possible, particularly for Russia and the Ukraine.
We hope that during her recent meetings in Britain the Minister for Foreign Affairs has used the opportunity to inject Australia's longstanding principles of multilateralism, and peace and respect for international law, when it comes to talks on Ukraine.
On the ground level, I can say that I have spoken personally to our honorary consul in Kiev, offering Labor's support to him at this very difficult time. We must ensure that we are providing adequate consular assistance to Australians in Ukraine. It is obviously a very difficult role at the moment, and the honorary consul should be offered any assistance that we can offer him in making sure that any Australians or dual nationals who are in the Ukraine at the moment are well looked after, and the connections between us are strong and immediate.
I am also very pleased that, in the last parliamentary sitting week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs accepted my suggestion to allow Ukrainians in Australia to apply onshore for an extension of their current visa. There is of course precedent for this happening in the past. When a country is in conflict, when there are difficulties being experienced at home, and Ukrainians are visiting Australia, it makes perfect sense that they should be able to go to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and talk through their circumstances and receive a generous hearing.
Despite being half a world away, what happens in the Ukraine will likely have economic and strategic ripples that effect the entire world. Certainly those economic and strategic effects will be felt in Australia, and that is why it is so important that Australia speaks up at every opportunity to urge a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. Recent tensions in our own region underline the importance of Australia working to support a rules based international system, and looking for opportunities to emphasise that zero-sum approaches to international relations hurt us all.
I support enthusiastically this motion and I thank the member for Brisbane for proposing it. I thank the member for Sydney for her support for this motion on behalf of the opposition. It is rare in this parliament that there is a unanimity of view. But I think the circumstances that face Ukraine reflect why this is the case. It was on Thursday, 21 November last year that I rose to propose a resolution to formally acknowledge on behalf of the government of Australia the 80th anniversary of the Ukrainian Holodomor. This was an engineered famine between 1932 and 1933. It was appalling. It gripped Ukraine in a way that led to the deaths of some 3.5 million people, and possibly more. There was aggressive implementation of forced collectivisation and five-year plans across the old Soviet Union immediately prior to this period. It had a profound and significant impact on Ukraine. I mention it because I want people to know that this country has endured hardship, incredible hardship, over a period of time. These events occurred in the context of, I think, forced domination in that region which has coerced people to support a form of nation that was not to their liking. This was the old Soviet Union. It reminds me of the former Yugoslavia, where states, essentially, were forced and coercively required to model themselves in a particular way. What we have seen, I think, with the passage of time is that those forced states do not survive. They did not in the former Yugoslavia; they did not with the old Soviet Union. But we are dealing with the remnants of that situation—a form of transmigration in which people were moved in order to provide for the Soviet hegemony in that region over a period of time. Those people still live in regions that were not naturally theirs and people have not walked away from the idea that they ought to be able to impose their will. And that is what, I think, we are seeing in Ukraine.
From the point of view of Russia, it is a very foolish approach that they are taking. They ought to look at Australia, where people of different cultures, different races and different religions can, in fact, live together and build a future together. I would like to think that that was possible in Ukraine. As the shadow foreign affairs minister mentioned, in 1994, when people were thinking sensibly about resolving these sorts of issues—and the European parliament recalled this in a resolution that it recently passed—the existing borders of Ukraine were guaranteed by the United States, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances when Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons and joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The European parliament was reminding the Russian Federation that, together with the two other countries mentioned, it had committed itself to the same act of refraining from economic coercion designed to subordinate to its own interests the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty, and, thus, to secure advantage of any kind.
This is a very, very important time. Russia can position itself in way that makes it an outstanding international citizen. But it appears to be acting contrary to that. The Australian parliament, I do not believe, should approve of it; the Australian government certainly does not. I urge very strongly support for this resolution proposed by the member for Brisbane.
It is a great pleasure to speak on this motion, and I congratulate the member for Brisbane on bringing it to the parliament. Obviously, I welcome its support by the opposition and the member for Sydney, and I note the rare moments of unanimity with my colleague the member for Berowra. Obviously, Eastern Europe has had an interesting history. But one thing that has been consistent for a very long time until the beginning of this century, or the end of last century, was that people were ruled by one tyrant or another for a very long period of time. Democracy, liberty and freedom have only really recently graced these lands. So this is a rare and unique opportunity, but it is coloured, I guess, by history.
There are four principles that I think we should apply to the Ukraine. The first and foremost is that they have the right to select their own government through free and fair elections and that that government should be free of corruption and kleptocracy. There should be a right to protest. They have the right, if you like, to decide the future of their country. They should have the right to choose their own foreign policy. That seems, to me, to be a fundamental right in a nation-state. Obviously, every nation, when it is choosing its foreign policy, takes into regard its neighbours and their interests as well. But one of the fundamental things a nation-state can do is choose its own foreign policy. If Ukraine want to join the European Union or have good relationships with Europe, that should be something that the nation are free to do. Fourthly, they have the right to their own territorial integrity. These borders have been established for the last 23 years; they are not some new invention. It is Ukrainians who should decide the future of those borders, not anybody else.
What weighs over all of this is, of course, Russia. It has legitimate national, economic and security interests in the region that need to be taken into account, to have regard to, and history weighs on those. But Russia should not annex territory, and that includes the Crimea. It cannot place troops into its neighbour's territory, outside of those bases which have been agreed to in previous agreements—the member for Sydney went through those agreements—and it definitely should not have armed personnel, in uniform but without insignia, outside those authorised bases. That is a very, very distressing precedent to set because one of the key things about having armed forces is that you are able to identify them. It is a most distressing precedent to have had soldiers running around with no insignia and no clear chain of command that the world can identify so that it became very hard to pinpoint on whose authority they were acting—officially, at least, if we knew or suspected they were acting under the command of the Russian President.
Russia should not seek to use Russian language or ethnicity as a reason for breaching the territorial integrity of nation states. This would be a recipe for disaster if it were allowed to stand as a principle. It would be as disastrous as when it was previously invoked as a principle, in the case of the Sudetenland. It is a very, very dangerous precedent to set and we should not allow it to be set. We should not allow Russia to support separatism within Ukraine's autonomous regions as a method of expanding Russia's borders. As the member for Berowra has said, it is a very old-fashioned way of doing foreign policy. Russia should accept international law and the UN Security Council's legitimate concerns about its behaviour and withdraw its veto about the Crimean referendum.
Ukraine has a short independent history, just 23 years, and that history means that those in Ukraine have an obligation to govern wisely with a view to peace and stability within the region. That means taking Russia into account but not being dominated by it. Ukrainians have a right to liberty, to freedom and democracy, but these things cannot be expressed if they are under the yoke of foreign domination or foreign threat. I urge the UN to act and I congratulate the member for Brisbane for bringing this motion to the House.
I want to start by congratulating the member for Brisbane and the member for Berowra for this excellent and important motion and for bringing it to the House in a timely fashion. It is timely because today we are in the shadow of a referendum ballot which has already been labelled as illegitimate by key members of the international community, including the United States and the United Kingdom. As a free, tolerant and open democracy and as a member of the United Nations Security Council, Australia has a right to point to the concerns of the international community about the democratic legitimacy of a ballot when surrounded by military personnel, when particular ethnic minorities do not feel able to cast a vote and under the circumstances we have seen in recent weeks and months in the Crimea and Ukraine. The United States have said they consider the referendum illegal under Ukrainian law and will not recognise the outcome. The European Union has condemned the referendum. It has also called the referendum illegal and is looking at sanctions. And the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has criticised Russian activities in a personal phone call with President Putin. These serious nations committed to democracy and freedom have expressed grave concern at the process. Australia has also expressed its grave concern about the process that has occurred on the Russian side in relation to Ukraine.
This motion is worth supporting because it does acknowledge that no-one has the right to use violence in relation to territorial sovereignty and integrity. We have heard from various speakers about the agreements between nations, including with Russia, to recognise the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in return for the giving up of nuclear weapons and the establishment of the Ukraine some few decades ago. Regardless of whether there are ethnic minorities which may wish to reunite with Russia or may have different desires than to be part of the Ukraine, it is not an appropriate mechanism to resolve those concerns or tensions through the use of armed soldiers simply walking into a country; simply surrounding the polling booths where a ballot is being conducted; simply pretending that, just because they wear no insignia, people with Russian equipment and Russian gear have nothing to do with the Russians. This is of grave concern to the entire world. I thank and support the United Nations Security Council and all the nations, including nations such as China, who have tried to seek a different way to resolve the problem within the Ukraine at the moment.
The reason we need to pass a motion like this is because all free and democratic nations in the world need to take a stand. If democracy is not properly constructed—that is, if the rights of minorities are not respected in a democracy—then you simply have absolute mob rule. The rights of minorities must be respected in a democratic system, otherwise there is no freedom or liberty. What we have in the Ukraine and particularly in the Crimea at the moment is that the rights of those minorities absolutely are not being respected or dealt with in a legal or lawful fashion, therefore there is simply mob rule and an illegitimate ballot. It is so important that we have this motion before us today to recognise from the Australian point of view that this ballot will not be regarded as legitimate by the international community.
I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, on her excellent work on the international stage in ensuring that it is clear that the Australian government's condemnation of Russian military activity inside and outside of Ukraine in relation to this matter is not acceptable. It is unacceptable for any nation to threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine, or anywhere else, in any way. The United Nations Security Council has been meeting and discussing this escalating crisis. In that process, Australia, through our new role at the Security Council, have made clear our unequivocal support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and that we absolutely condemn the use of force, the threat of the use of force and, of course, the conduct of a referendum ballot under the threat of the use of force. I fully support this motion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and the Australian government. I commend the House on all sides for supporting such an important motion in the shadow of such concerning developments in the Ukraine.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) importance of the Australian aid program to sustainable economic and social development and poverty alleviation for Pacific nations;
(b) contribution of the Australian aid program to Australia's national interests through support for regional stability, security and prosperity;
(c) Foreign Minister's verbal commitment to not cut Australian development assistance to Pacific nations; and
(d) announcement by the Foreign Minister on 18 January 2014 that $650 million will be cut from Australia's development assistance in 2013-14, including $61.4 million cuts to the following Pacific country and regional programs:
(2) calls on the:
(a) Foreign minister to meet her commitment to not cut Australian development assistance to Pacific nations; and
(b) Government to reverse its $4.5 billion in cuts to Australia’s aid program and reinstate funding to levels published in the 2013-14 budget.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
On 19 December, on a steamy day in Port Vila, I was fortunate to visit the Vanuatu Women's Centre in a modest cottage on the outskirts of that nation's capital. There, with the delegation that I was with, I met some special people: young women who had left abusive relationships and who were rebuilding their lives with the support of the remarkable staff of that centre; women who were optimistic about their futures, having received support and training through an Australian technical college; women whose confidence had returned and who were setting up their lives and their own businesses to secure their and their children's futures. This is one of many Australian aid success stories: tackling problems—big problems—at the heart of Melanesian society, namely violence against women and a lack of job opportunities.
I was in the Pacific as part of a delegation led by our nation's foreign minister, Julie Bishop. Also on the delegation were the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign minister, Tanya Plibersek, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Brett Mason. Days earlier we had visited the Solomon Islands, and sat in on some training being provided to enthusiastic new recruits of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force undertaking very important training and cultural awareness for when it comes to domestic violence.
Of course, the training was part of a government program largely funded by Australian aid. Both these nations—the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu—are good friends of the Australian people and the Australian nation. In those nations, our foreign minister gave a commitment to the respective prime ministers and publicly that there would be no cuts to foreign aid to Pacific nations. The leaders of those nations were pleased to receive that commitment from the foreign minister. I must say that I was also pleasantly surprised and pleased to hear that commitment given by our nation's foreign minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you could have blown me over when I read in the Australian press on 18 January that $650 million was being cut from Australia's development aid in 2013-14, and that $61.4 million was being cut in the Pacific. When I read it my first thought was that it was a mistake, that it could not be right. I was with the foreign minister when she gave the commitment to the people of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. But, unfortunately, the story was right and $61.4 million is being cut from the aid budget to our Pacific neighbours.
No details have yet been announced. We do not know which programs or which services are going to be cut. Are some of those programs that we saw—those positive results that we viewed in the Pacific, combating violence against women—going to be cut? Perhaps that is something that some of the coalition speakers can enlighten us on. These nations—our neighbours and our friends—and our program partners, those wonderful NGOs that deliver these programs on behalf of Australia in these developing nations, deserve the right to know which programs in which services that are funded by the people of Australia are going to be cut.
I suspect that coalition speakers are going to claim that we are currently undertaking a review of aid effectiveness; that our aid is spread too thinly across the world and that it is ineffective. That is complete rubbish! The programs I witnessed, and which the delegation witnessed, tackling big problems at the heart of society in the Pacific, were worth every cent. They are delivered by NGOs that are proven at getting results and improving the living standards of our neighbours. They are programs that are fully audited by the Australian National Audit Office and other checks and balances in our government.
In 2011 the then Labor government undertook an independent review of Australia's aid effectiveness, and answered and adopted all 39 recommendations. This motion calls on our foreign minister to deliver on the commitment that she gave to the people of the Pacific and to deliver to the NGOs, to tell them where these programs are going to be cut.
I rise to speak on this motion that is not only ill-conceived but that is straight-out deceitful.
The very act of raising this motion is a classic and particularly repugnant display of Labor amnesia—something that the opposition has embraced without reservation since being shown the door by the Australian people on 7 September last year. The piece de resistance is Labor's hijacking. They did not want to talk about the hijacking of foreign aid—particularly the budget—when they were in office. They had a very nice little term for it: they called it 'reprioritisation'. Yes, that is what it was called: 'reprioritisation' of $750 million from the aid budget to pay for the onshore costs of their failed border protection policies, something that we have never ever seen the like of before in Australia's history. Now, notwithstanding this travesty, Labor members have the audacity to stand and speak in support of the motion here today.
Of course, there was the $3 billion in diverted aid funding to buy a seat on the United Nations Security Council, with staggering—absolutely staggering—expenditures of $65 million on a telescope in the Chilean desert and $150,000 for a statue in New York to commemorate slavery in the Caribbean. These are things that I have spoken about before in the past in this House. These expenditures are truly difficult to justify when you look at our region, particularly at the infection rates of TB, malaria and HIV-AIDS in our own region and at our own back door. This expenditure becomes shameful when you look at the rates of maternal and infant mortality in the Asia-Pacific region. You really have to wonder exactly what criteria Labor was using in applying Australia's aid budget and making sure that the aid budget was well spent.
By way of contrast, the Abbott government is focused on the expenditure of Australian taxpayer dollars through our foreign aid budget being effective. 'Effective' is a very important word. Being effective in the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' dollars is not something that Labor excel at. What they do excel at is spending it. Again by way of contrast, the Abbott government is committed to an aid program that will help alleviate poverty and lift the living standards of vulnerable people through economic growth. We recognise that sustainable economic growth is the best way in the world to alleviate poverty. This is at the heart of the approach we are taking to aid.
Our approach to prioritising economic growth to alleviate poverty has been endorsed by Erik Solheim, the Chairman of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. Writing in The Australian on 17 January this year he said the government and Foreign Minister Bishop should be applauded for focusing on the importance of economic development. 'Development assistance is good, but economic growth is even better,' he said. As announced before the election, the Abbott government is refocusing our aid, trade and diplomatic efforts in our region, where our national interest is and where we have, and have always had, the most capacity to make a real difference.
As was the case in 1996, the coalition government has been left an economic mess by Labor. MYEFO highlighted the extent of Labor's economic legacy: a $47 billion deficit this year, $123 billion in cumulative deficits over the forward estimates and gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion. Labor's legacy was also a mess in the aid budget. They broke their own promise to increase the aid program to 0.5 per cent of gross national income on three separate occasions. Members opposite do not like to be reminded of that, but the hypocrisy does not end there. In the last 15 months of the Labor government they cut $5.7 billion from the aid budget over the forward estimates. Labor never took their cuts to an election. By contrast, this government made clear before the election its policy of saving $4.5 billion from the aid budget over the forward estimates. The coalition has a mandate to implement its policy decisions.
We make no apologies for taking these hard decisions to claw back Labor's debt and deficit. That is what the Australian people voted for in the election. We are delivering on what the government refused to do. We want to implement rigorous performance benchmarks for the aid program, as recommended in the aid effectiveness review. The Abbott government is cleaning up the mess Labor left domestically and internationally. Part of that job is to have a great aid program. (Time expired)
I want to thank the member for Kingsford Smith for his motion that goes to the heart of a number of important issues that have been raised in recent months about the changes to Australia's aid budget. It is certainly the case that when we were in the Pacific, as he pointed out, members of parliament, prime ministers and others in those island nations when meeting with our foreign minister raised their concerns about cuts to Australia's aid program and what it would mean for them. We saw more than once the foreign minister reassure those people that they had nothing to worry about, but, as it turns out, that was a false reassurance.
Our aid program in the Pacific supports those who need it the most. Our programs support healthcare, infrastructure and education programs. They have a very real impact on our neighbours' quality of life. In the healthcare sector we provide drugs and medical equipment, we fund hospital maintenance, we deliver essential medicines, we train doctors and we provide professional training for healthcare workers.
The member for Brisbane, the previous speaker, spoke about child and maternal health, something we can all agree is an absolutely vital outcome of our aid work. How cutting $4.5 billion from our aid budget actually promotes child and maternal health is a little beyond me. Our programs reduce infant mortality rates, provide life-changing surgical procedures and fight common diseases. The infrastructure provided through our aid program in the Pacific lays powerlines to remote communities and builds roads, which opens communities to the outside world and to the very economic opportunities the previous member spoke of.
In the education sector we build schools, train teachers and fight to close the gender gap in classrooms. In Indonesia we have been building schools with ramps so that for the first time kids with disabilities can get into the classroom and get an education. These programs are essential, life-changing and life-saving services. These services are delivered to our neighbours and are in our best interests as well as theirs.
In addition to those poverty alleviation programs, our aid program supports sustainable economic and social development. These are programs which push for gender equity in development and reduce domestic violence. The member for Kingsford Smith spoke very movingly about our visit to the Vanuatu Women's Centre, which is another recipient of Australian aid. Since 2007 it has helped more than 10,000 survivors of family violence with counselling, legal assistance and accommodation and has worked to improve educational and economic outcomes for women.
In Solomon Islands we met the Acting Commissioner of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, Juanita Matanga. Her position and her story are representative of a changing society where women have more choice and opportunity. Her story demonstrates a changing society not only where development is represented and measured in economic terms but where our aid funding directly drives this positive change across the society of Solomon Islands.
We did not visit PNG on this trip, but our aid dollars there make such an enormous difference. Between 2004 and 2011 the number of women appointed to village courts increased from 10 to 1,000. At the end of 2011 there were 700 women working as magistrates and 300 working as clerks and peace officers. Aid funding went toward an awareness and training program responsible for increasing this number of women magistrates. You can imagine the huge change they make in a culture where sexual assault and domestic violence are so prevalent. Also in PNG aid programs have funded measures to improve the safety of public spaces, particularly marketplaces where women were being raped regularly when taking their goods to market. This program makes it possible for women subsistence farmers to take their goods to market and sell them safely for the economic benefit of themselves and their families.
These programs are examples of the nation-building work our aid program has done. They are programs which enable our neighbours to build the economies and societies that everybody deserves to have. They are in our best interests as well as in the best interests of our neighbours, because peace, security and better health services in our region benefit Australians as well.
Unfortunately, the government has made a series of choices that threaten the aid sector entirely. We have lost the expertise of those AusAID staff who have lost their jobs as they have been merged with DFAT. We have removed poverty reduction as an aim of the aid budget. The foreign minister's announcement of $61.4 million of cuts in the Pacific and $650 million in cuts in the first year of the aid program alone has dealt a devastating blow to the work we do. These cuts will return Australia to the historic low levels of funding under the Howard government. Instead of moving progressively to 0.5 per cent of gross national income it will fall to 0.32 per cent— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the importance of providing efficient and effective aid to our Pacific neighbours, and our role in maintaining order and prosperity within our region. At the last election, Australians saw the need to return to a proper, responsible and prudent government to put the nation's books back in order. Against that background, we can scrutinise our foreign aid system. It is time that we redefine how we measure the impact of Australia's foreign aid.
Instead of foreign aid being judged merely by the number of dollars spent, the key indicator of a project's success should be what is actually achieved on the ground. While there is no way of waving a magic wand and suddenly making all foreign aid more efficient and effective, there are a number of ways aid recipients, donors, workers, governments and the private sector can work together to improve the efficiency of our system. On occasions, the cost of aid delivery appears to outweigh the aid itself. While it is quite proper to try to protect the integrity of our aid system, we burden ourselves with the bureaucracy and inflexibility that can overwhelm the good intentions.
However, there are a number of effective partnership relationships to improve aid delivery, ranging from public-private partnerships to the whole question of social entrepreneurship. At least 80 per cent of today's assistance comes from non-public sources. This is up 30 per cent from 40 years ago, according to USAID's assistant administrator for global health. It is estimated that from an initial investment of $2.1 billion in public funds, USAID was able to leverage an additional $5.8 billion in private funds and contributions. From my discussions with Abt JTA, a private aid consulting firm doing some great work in Papua New Guinea, they believe that this point about leverage is crucial. There has been little effort in the past to use our aid program to leverage funds from others and develop collaborative partnerships, yet there is considerable potential to do so. William Easterly, a professor of economics at NYU, believes that it is important, especially for Western nations, to identify that development happens mainly through home-grown efforts. Easterly believes that the developed nations provide foreign aid and development programs through the lens of Western culture, with a focus on significant bureaucracy. He panned approaches that do not involve the people the services aim to benefit.
While I was in Papua New Guinea at the end of last year with the Australian Defence Force, I was inspired to some extent by a discussion with Sir Peter Barter and Father Jan Czuba, the president of Divine Word University, about the benefits of institution-to-institution support as an effective method of aid delivery. Father Jan has focused programs within the university to be primarily health and education based so that Papua New Guinean graduates contribute back to their community and fill areas where they are needed the most. Father Jan has focused primarily in these areas. Another example of a great success story is the PNG LNG project. This is not just as an infrastructure project. With companies such as Oil Search and other partners in that project, they are delivering aid in important areas such as TB awareness, HIV-AIDS awareness, and the crucial one of maternal mortality to the villages as the project passes through them. We have seen some significant improvements in health care delivery occurring in the PNG LNG project villages.
There are many avenues the Australian government can take to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our foreign aid. At the end of the day, value for our taxpayers' dollars is what it is about, and value for the beneficiaries of our aid.
All of the rhetoric and all of the pronouncements of what might happen in the future with a tightened budget and greater controls does not overcome the reality of here, today. That reality is a significant reduction of $650 million in aid to our region. This region does matter. It is not only the question of increased Chinese activity in the region with regard to its foreign aid budget and it is not only the question of how we look in the world. It is the realities. The relevant United Nations body recently pronounced:
The Pacific faces the highest levels of vulnerability, with very low coping capacity and resilience to the endogenous and exogenous shocks that has adversely impacted Pacific communities in recent years. As a result, the Pacific region runs the very high risk of not achieving the MDGs.
The Pacific is not performing well on many goals and the region is struggling. That is where we live. That is where we want to influence. That is where we can be effective. I do not have to cite only United Nations bodies as to how important it is to concentrate on this region. The DFAT site says of Tonga, 'It is an important regional partner.' It further notes increasing levels of debt and declining quality of education. Of Samoa it pronounces, 'Almost 27 per cent of the population live below the national basic needs poverty line.' DFAT says of Vanuatu, 'Many of Vanuatu’s people live in poverty, have poor health, and cannot access opportunities and services such as education.'
I have had the opportunity in a recent study to see what we are doing in Tonga and Samoa, and it is very real. I went to the SENESE disability organisation, which has been up by an Australian expatriate there who married a local Samoan. It is now able to provide enough work for a doctor there so that they can have a full-time person helping people with disabilities. They can repair hearing aids, so they do not have to go back to Melbourne and cost thousands of dollars for repair. They are training people to make sure the education system is able to help people who are disabled.
I saw youth ambassadors, people on a stipend who are working for those communities. I saw people inside the Treasury department of those countries making sure that what those opposite are talking about happens, that the budget is improved, that there are controls. I witnessed a situation in which Tonga, being a very flat nation, very hard hit by tsunamis and other measures is doing land reclamation. I visited police stations where we are doing reconstruction, where we are making sure that their technology is up to date, where we are making sure that there is no abuse of services. I saw primary school openings, where we have done the repairs. This is the reality of what our foreign aid program is undertaking in the region at the moment.
Finally, it is all right for people to talk about the need for tightening, but in statements of the then shadow foreign affairs minister—now the Minister for Foreign Affairs—time after time, we saw inferences to the Australian public that Labor had done wrong by reducing the budget. Yet, when the Abbott government came to power, they reduced aid by $650 million in the region that matters to us, the region where we can be effective.
Prior to entering parliament, I saw first hand the burdens and suffering of the unfortunate and impoverished, some of the things the member for Kingsford Smith talked about: in refugee camps in South Lebanon; closer to home in the Philippines, in the Solomon Islands and in Timor Leste; extreme poverty in Afghanistan and Iraq during deployments there in 2001 and 2005; and, in Southern Iraq in my role as chief of staff of the British-led division in Basra, included helping organisations like DFID, USAID and a variety of NGOs.
As a senior public servant, I managed my department's regional cooperation programs, some hundred million dollars every year, in building institutional strength in regional countries. Together, these responsibilities have confirmed for me the vital importance of our aid abroad. But our genuine sympathy from an aid perspective must always be balanced with our capacity to pay for and sustain our aid program. On that basis, those opposite should do less pious lecturing about aid and consider why our economic freedom of action has been diminished. The official record of the meeting that the member for Kingsford Smith refers to does not support his claims. But the budget papers support the following claims—Labor left a $47 billion deficit this financial year, a $123 billion in cumulative deficits across the forward estimates and debt due to peak at $667 billion. I ask: where were their fine words about devastating effects on women and children when their party removed $5.7 billion from the forward estimates of the aid budget in the last 15 months of the 43rd Parliament—cuts, by the way, that Labor never took to an election?
Why did Labor break their promise three times to increase the aid program to 0.5 per cent of gross national income? Why was it okay for Labor to rip $375 million from the aid budget to pay for their cost blow-out in the immigration budget? Where is the national interest assessment in justifying Bob Carr's spending on rhinoceros programs in Sumatra and re-building Grenada's parliament? How could Libya be so important to Australia's national interests to justify Australia being the third largest donor to Libya during the Libyan crisis, behind the EU and the United States of America?
Where is the logic in Labor objecting to our refocussing of aid, trade and diplomatic efforts to our own backyard? After all, that is what we promised at the 2013 election, it is where our primary national interests are and it is where we have the most capacity to make a difference. Our job is to stabilise the aid mess that Labor has left us.
In the current financial year, the Australian government will spend $5.042 billion on aid—that is, only $107 million less than was spent on aid in 2012-13. Unlike Labor, this government made clear before the election its policy of saving $4.5 billion from the aid budget over the forward estimates. We also promised to implement the aid effectiveness recommendations from Labor's own review after the 2010 election. From next financial year, the aid budget will grow each year in line with the consumer price index. As one of the most generous aid donors in the world, we will provide greater stability and certainty to aid organisations. We will prioritise sustainable economic development in recipient countries because, as the chairman of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee has said, 'Development assistance is good, but economic growth is even better.' Foreign aid is the hallmark of a generous, tolerant nation. But—and herein lies the rub—it must be affordable, sustainable, and consistent with our national interests. Our aid program must be underpinned by a strong culture of accountability, so that waste is eradicated and Australian community support is maintained.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, aid should be directed at helping recipient nations become more independent, not miring them further in dependency. That is why it is called aid, not charity—because well-directed aid supports constructive outcomes. There is no more constructive an outcome than a nation becoming self-sufficient through its own economic growth. I commend these ideas to and I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
I use this opportunity of the address-in-reply to highlight some important issues that my area of Redlands has fought for over the last decade, in particular, the acknowledgement that our unique geography and ecology shapes the issues that have focused my population's attention. Over the last three elections, being on the Queensland coast, having Moreton Bay islands off the coast and of course having all the challenges of an outer metropolitan area, you can imagine that the concerns will be primarily around balancing the need for infrastructure and opportunity with preserving our fabulous bayside environment, which is globally unique.
Moreton Bay is a standout area of Ramsar significance with populations of sea turtles, dugongs and migratory birds, not to mention the fishing opportunities. For the last three elections what has been top of the agenda for locals there has been the desire for better health and education services—that is not unfamiliar—and wanting better roads and public transport—that is not unfamiliar either. But, we have had some unique concerns from those who live on our islands—the 7,000 Australians who live on Moreton Bay's islands—including their transport needs to get on and off the islands to work and, of course the right that every South-East Queenslander if not Australian cherishes, the right to be able to wet a line and go fishing without undue government interference. These are the issues that have characterised the last three elections.
We have seen attempts by the previous state Labor government to zone large areas of Moreton Bay on very flimsy evidence. It is a mess that has only now been unpicked by the current LNP government. If there is anyone in this community who cares about the sustainability of fishing areas it is a fisherman, I can assure you. Fishermen know what is going on and see what others are doing. There is a certain support and even peer group pressure around the boat ramps right up and down the Queensland coast. Fishermen have had their rights taken away with the imposition of what are expansive and arbitrary green zones. To highlight just one story, there was a green zone placed down in the southern Moreton Bay area and nobody knew why it was there until we looked at Google Maps. The bureaucrats had obviously seen where the fishing boats were on those maps and they drew little lines around wherever they saw a fishing boat, just in case it was somewhere that might have been a good green zone. We saw investment from the Howard government and now, as a result of this flimsy evidence, future commitments have been made at the state level to garner better evidence about what is sustainable in the biomass of the very delicate ecology in a place like Moreton Bay.
Of course, you cannot live in an area without opportunity and without jobs. You do not want to live in a community where everyone has to leave for work. As is the case with many electorates, nearly half my population has a member of the family jumping in a vehicle or into public transport and leaving the area purely for employment. Providing opportunities in your local area—through employment, promoting population growth and giving people the opportunity to have an education—so that people do not have to leave for substantial periods of their careers is something that everyone who serves in an outer metropolitan seats will have to fight for.
We want to know that we have the best health services in an era when services are centralising to larger tertiary facilities. Increasingly we are seeing a centripetal pressure to bring services at the highest level into just one or two hospitals in cities, and that simply undercuts the political power of local superintendents to keep their staff, and to keep their hospitals well supplied and able to deliver the top-class, world-class care that we know can be achieved but so often is not. Lastly, we have the issue of people movement. We had the impact of the carbon tax and the removal of the diesel rebate. As result of the carbon tax, a full 10 per cent more is being paid by people travelling on and off the islands. The issue was not adequately ventilated but it is a cause of great concern because thousands of people in my electorate live on islands for a variety of reasons but still want to maintain a connection to the real economy. They want to be able to get off those islands when they need to find a job and they want to know that emergency services can get out onto the islands when they are needed as well.
Every one of my six populated islands has a unique characteristic. Of course, North Stradbroke is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I also want to mention Karragarra, Lamb, Macleay, Russell, and Coochiemudlo islands, each of which has their own unique character. History has dealt them a cruel hand, because of what happened in the seventies when these islands were subdivided. It has been joked that we simply dropped a flyscreen on these islands and sold off the blocks with no regard to what was above or below the high tide level, the high watermark. Now we have large populations and relatively low rents, and it is very difficult to sell property. In many cases, the people who most need the services are least able to get them. That will be a long-term challenge for those representing these parts of Moreton Bay. The infrastructure deficit—for instance, none of these islands, which are 8 to 10 kilometres long, are sewered and none of them have adequate public transport facilities on them—creates enormous pressures on these communities and on people who simply want to get to a boat ramp to be able to go and see a doctor or avail themselves of other services that they cannot get on the island.
Lastly, we have the issue of providing a future tertiary facility for this part of South-East Queensland. There is no doubt that we want our universities to be top-class facilities, but we also know increasingly that young families do not want to see their kids drive to the other side of Brisbane just to get basic qualifications on how to service an automobile or how to get a basic trade. If we could keep some sort of critical mass in communities like mine, where young people could finish their grade 10 or their senior qualification without being asked to take three buses and a 1½ hour trip, then surely there must be a public good in that.
Of course, fighting for these priorities is not limited to one side of politics. Both sides of this chamber are going to share these objectives, though they will probably come at them in a different way. Bowman, having been one of those changing-hands seats, has seen some enormous election campaigns over the last three federal elections. In that time, in particular, we have seen huge numbers of volunteers coming out to fight for whatever they believe in. Today I want to acknowledge people who have supported any of the political parties in my area, because they are fighting for what they think is right for the community. Specifically, I want to mention that on our side of politics we rely completely on volunteers—there are no bussed in crowds and there is no-one on union salaries; these are people who give their own time for free because they want better country. To that end, what can you do? All you can do is look after your volunteers as well as you can. I would like to mention a few of them today and then talk about some of their unique contributions during those campaigns.
Bowman was arguably Australia's first electorate to apply an expansive use of highways and byways to run political campaigning even outside of the election cycle. It did not matter whether it was after an election or before an election, people were on the sides of the roads holding signs. This was something that was usually only done by an MP after they had won a seat and they held a little thankyou sign for one morning and then went and had brunch somewhere. In Bowman, what happened three elections ago was that key geographic areas in the electorate became areas where there were rallies—people with signs and handmade messages campaigning for both sides of the political fence. Once one side started doing it, the other was compelled to reciprocate. This drew out people, part of the massive commuter movement into Brisbane every day, to have their political say. That was a major victory in getting people mobilised. People like Peter Read, Judy Ann Zacka, Denis Bowman, Barry and Shay Murphy, Troy Brown, Fred and Gloria Olssen, Mike and Pam Sammut, Judie Hallisee and Maddi Arthurs all who got out and got involved in that kind of activity.
On one side you have the grunt and the brawn, and on the other side you have the technology. We have had to keep up with the increasing use of social media and various forms of telecommunications to reach out to people who normally do not read flyers. One of the ways that this has been done, as we will all remember, was the 2004 'robocalls', where messages were pushed through to thousands of homes around my electorate as one of two or three areas piloted in that election. It caused enormous surprise at the time but has now become routine and commonplace and, if anything, is now being superseded by other technologies, all of which have been pioneered in my seat. Moving from 'robocalls' were 'spidercalls' where, within hours, a voice can be recorded for about 30 seconds and then transmitted to the community, to nominated phone numbers, the following day. This made campaigns much more responsive than had been dreamed of before, when we were predominantly printing off flyers and hoping people plucked them out of their letterboxes and read them. We know that people do not do that and we know that is not a great way to reach locals.
More recently, SMS technology has allowed 'ninja calls' to actually divert from a person's handset and go straight to voicemail. This allows people to listen to a pre-recorded message without being interrupted at the time of that phone call coming in. This new technology is also likely to see more widespread use. Then, pioneered in Bowman also, was the use of a small device that allows us to SMS mobile phone numbers in aggregate and be able to target information according to age, geography and the issue that people care about. So, for the first time, we can see genuinely tailored efforts to reach out to young people with a particular concern, to mothers of a particular age or a particular geography and to older people, who care about different issues entirely, without bothering the rest of the population. A good example of this has been the fishing issue, where a large amount of information has been transmitted using social and SMS communication.
Obviously, Facebook is occupying more and more of the time of everyone in here. I see Facebook being used more widely. I see it sitting on people's screens during question time. I am glad it is still within the standing orders to have a peek at what your constituents are saying while you are in this chamber. We now have a budget set aside to specifically reach out to our constituents using social media. Bowman is the only seat in this place that absolutely rigorously focuses its social media time line on locals. You cannot be on that page unless we verify you as coming from the community. I think that really generates a local conversation. When you feel you can talk with locals, when it is your neighbour or the people down the street or in the neighbouring suburb who are going to be engaging you, it is far different to having a fan page that pulls in the entire nation, where you have trolls coming from all over the place who will often flame your point of view for no good reason other than that that is what they do almost as a full-time profession. So I think keeping it local has made a massive difference. Finally, we have tried to utilise billboard technology more. Again, that is commonplace now but was not five or 10 years ago. For the first time this year, we are actually using solar powered illumination of billboards where billboards were not illuminated.
I also recognise those who worked outside and campaigned: Paul Field, who has been a long-term campaigner and previously a councillor for the Redland area, Leena Brooks, Shaun Edwards, Mark Neville, Paul Branagan, Suzi Foster, Gordon Somes, Peter Johnson, Rod MacDonald, Jess Holzworth and the tireless Ed Barclay, who would pull up in his company ute on his way to work and spend half an hour on the side of the road on those long, four-hour sessions, effectively just standing on a busy, stinking-hot corner, waving to constituents and hoping that one or two of them would pull over and have a chat to you about what they care most about. The other great push was taking a few people into licensed facilities at 10 o'clock at night, doing some non-profit work and having a chance to meet people under the age of 21, who almost never get to meet a politician. Reaching out to those people is absolutely critical if you are going to improve your net preference above zero with an age group that is typically quite sceptical, if not hostile, towards politicians.
I also recognise Luke and Jack Hughes, Ian Stephens, Adrienne Verco, John Colvin, Alan Mikkelsen, Kirsty Heigan, Ed O'Driscoll, Thomas Neville, Matt Herbert, Chris and Cam Leafe—it was Cameron who pioneered the SMS Arduino device, as it is called, imported from the US, that allows high-speed SMS communication to large numbers of people and provides logs of their responses—Peter Lapp, Dan Jarvis, James Jiminez, Bill Dingli, and of course Louise Peters. To them I say: it does not really matter which party you support, but in this great and thriving democracy it is great that Australians can still come out in a seat that matters, fight for what they believe in, and be part of a peaceful democratic process which Australia is proud of.
I rise in the address-in-reply debate to talk about the privilege of once again representing the people of Moncrieff. It is indeed an absolute honour for me, as it is for each of us in this parliament to have the opportunity to represent our respective electorates. Among the 150 parts of the country that are represented in this chamber, it will be no surprise that I happen to think that mine is the best. The reason I think mine is the best is that, if you were to take a survey of the 23 million Australians, I would predict that most of them would say that the Gold Coast and, in particular, some of the iconic parts of my electorate such as Surfers Paradise rank up there as being some the most quintessentially Aussie and beautiful parts of the country. So it is an absolute privilege and honour for me, coming through my fifth election, to stand here at this dispatch box in this parliament and to represent the hundred thousand or so people in the seat of Moncrieff.
The story of the Gold Coast is an interesting and evolving story. My seat, only created in 1984 and previously served by the Hon. Kathy Sullivan, has been a place of intense change over the past several decades. It is certainly one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The Gold Coast is now Australia's sixth largest city, as it has been for some time, and it continues to be a city that faces a number of unique challenges. Yes, the high pace of population growth presents a number of challenges for us in terms of our critical infrastructure—things like our roads, public transport and education. Each of these issues is of course important in the eyes of each of each of my constituents and they are important issues to me. Likewise, the health sector: a big part of the Gold Coast population is our very broadscale population demographic, but there is a particular bias in some aspects towards those aged 65 and over, and their focus on health is a key area of priority for them and therefore a key area of priority for me. The last federal election campaign provided real hope for me and for many of them, as they embraced in large numbers the coalition's plans on how to take our nation forward.
The Gold Coast, in particular Moncrieff, represents a focal point for so much of the change that we see happening across our community. Not that many years ago there was a continued focus on what was called the 'sea change', as people moved away from regional parts of the country or crowded urban areas to embrace the lifestyle that they thought went along with being someone who lived by the sea. Perhaps Bernard Salt, the famous demographer from KPMG, encapsulated best in his numerous writings over the years what it is that people are looking for and the values represented in part of that quest.
For me, in representing a seat like Moncrieff, it is the very recognition that Aussies across this wide brown land embrace a number of core values: the chance to have a go, the relaxed approach that we have to life, the view that each of us is equal and that we should basically be left alone to go about our business. I see those values played out in a city like the Gold Coast. For so many years it was Australia's holiday playground. It was our premier tourist destination and it continues to be, but there has been a stark contrast painted over the past several years between the Gold Coast that so many Australians knew and the Gold Coast that has existed over the last four or five years.
The catalyst that drove that change was the global financial crisis. We saw in my city—a small business town which has, on a per capita basis, the highest concentration of small businesses in the country—a very significant and strong headwind that continues to last today. The good news is that it is dissipating, but it is a headwind that has been there solidly and consistently throughout the past four or five years. In that respect, the message that I heard from my constituents was, 'Steve, please affect change in Canberra that can help get this nation back on its feet.' People would talk to me about their concerns, the legacy of the past six years and how the failed policies of the previous government did not set up the Gold Coast or the nation to be 'fighting fit' for the challenges we as a nation and my own city had to face.
Gold Coasters, like many Australians, did not like the fact that under Labor we saw reckless spending to an extreme not previously seen in this nation. The consequence of that spending was that we saw predictions of $123 billion worth of budget deficits over the forward estimates in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We saw that the debt trajectory of this nation would have an end point of some $667 billion unless changes were made. They were the consequences of six years of poor economic stewardship by the Australian Labor Party. Although we can talk about broad aggregate numbers—$123 billion worth of deficits, $667 billion worth of debt, 200,000 extra Australians unemployed—how that actually played out in my seat of Moncrieff and on the Gold Coast was in seeing people struggling.
Australians in my seat have, in some respects, a fairly novel approach to life. Historically, that has seen them relaxed and comfortable about their lives, embracing the life that goes with living alongside what is a magnificent stretch of beach and having an approach to entrepreneurialism that is played out through the highest concentration of small businesses in what is Australia's small business capital, the Gold Coast. The consequences of poor economic stewardship from here in Canberra meant that small businesses were collapsing and folding at a rate we had not previously seen. The unemployment rate in my city skyrocketed. We saw investment grind to a halt, whether it was investment in new products or new services, or investment by those abroad, from places outside the Gold Coast into property on the Gold Coast. Commercial investment ground to a halt. Unfortunately, we saw commercial vacancies ran as high as 50 or 60 per cent in parts of my city. That was the legacy of six years of Labor.
The last federal election campaign was, in many respects, an opportunity for me to campaign on hope and to campaign to my Gold Coast constituents on the basis of saying, 'Let's put aside the failed policies of the Australian Labor Party, which have run up unemployment and debt, and let's embrace policies that say we must live within our means and must make astute investments that are sure to provide a dividend yield, not in a literal sense but in a figurative sense, for the people of the Gold Coast for decades to come.' That is what they wanted.
They did not like the approach of the Australian Labor Party that saw our single biggest industry—the tourism industry—shackled with billions of dollars of new taxes. They did not like the approach of the Australian Labor Party that saw our biggest single industry—the tourism industry, which is, incidentally, also our single largest employer—having to compete with other nations for Aussie holiday dollars. If people travelled to other nations, they did not have to pay a carbon tax, but if they travelled to the Gold Coast to have their holiday they did pay a carbon tax..
That was the kind of crazy policy approach that we saw from the Labor Party. It said, 'If you take a holiday abroad, you do not pay carbon tax, but, if you choose to go to the Gold Coast for your vacation, you do pay carbon tax.' It was a rejection of that kind of approach that my constituents made very clear to me, and that is what the government—and I am very honoured to be part of this government—is focused on delivering.
I hope that with the passage of time we will be able to undo a lot of damage that was done by the Australian Labor Party, but it will take time. We saw, in large numbers, support for the coalition in the Gold Coast, and I am pleased to say that that was reflected across the length and breadth of the nation. That is what led to the change of government so that now, as the Prime Minister has said on so many occasions, Australia is under new management and open for business. Even in the six months since the election, the feeling of change in the approach of the community, the attitude of its people and its general tempo is pronounced.
The Gold Coast today is already starting to emerge from the shadows of Labor and of the GFC. The Gold Coast today is seeing investment in a raft of areas, including having the Commonwealth Games in 2018. We are now only a matter of weeks or months away from the 2014 games, but there is a build up of excitement for the Commonwealth Games and for what it means for our city. We have seen consumer confidence become so much stronger than it was under the Australian Labor Party. We have seen property prices start to spur again. That is because Australians have more confidence that tomorrow is going to be a better day than today, and that is what was missing for the last six years.
In other crucial matters for my constituency we saw the ramifications—in the negative sense, unfortunately—of poor Labor Party policy decisions. Labor closed down the immigration office on the Gold Coast. The export of education was a big industry in my city, and Labor made things tougher for it by closing down the immigration office. The consequence of that is that if you are an international student studying English, for example, or undertaking vocational studies on the Gold Coast, you now have to travel to Brisbane in order to visit the department of immigration, which many are required to do on a regular and ongoing basis. I am committed to reopening that office. The challenge that we as the new government have is that we have been left with a multitude of debt, with the last budget deficit being $47 billion, for example. So I say to the Gold Coast and to my constituents: we will reopen that service, but it is going to take time. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and promise them that we are going to open up all of these government services that Labor shut down, because we cannot afford it. The $47 billion worth of debt in the last budget alone means that we have to make some tough decisions to get debt under control. But once it is under control—once we have got the reckless spending stopped, which this government has been focused on doing right from day one—then we will again have money and capital available to reopen services that we know are crucial to providing the support that crucial industries, like the education export industry, in my electorate need and deserve in order to continue making money, driving employment and driving exports of Australian services.
Likewise, we saw the crazy decision of the Australian Labor Party to shut down the Australian Federal Police office on the Gold Coast. We saw, perhaps at its zenith, about 12 months ago, the reputation of the Gold Coast getting trashed and tarnished almost daily in the media. Labor's solution was to close down the Federal Police office on the Gold Coast and to rip 40 per cent out of the budget of the Australian Federal Police, because they had had their ridiculous spending sprees, handing out $900 checks to all and sundry, they had spent money to install pink batts and then spent more money to rip them back out and they had spent money on failed schemes. There were massive cost blow-outs in their so-called border protection policies, which cost some $11½ billion, I think. I make this solemn pledge to the people of the Gold Coast: we will get an AFP office back on the Gold Coast. I promise them that it will come back, but it is going to take time, because we have to stop that reckless spending and we have to restore our nation's finances. By doing so, we will have the money available to invest in delivering the safety and security that Australians and, in particular, my constituency of Moncrieff want and deserve.
The state government stepped up to the plate and did an outstanding job through the so-called VLAD laws. We have seen bikies pushed out of our city and pushed out of our state, and with that a lot of the crime—assaults and burglaries—that is associated with them. From memory, there has been a decline of something like 40 per cent in a number of areas, such as breaking and entering, and assaults, since those laws came into effect.
Apart from those positive plans to restore our city, the only reason I have the privilege of standing in this chamber is that so many people worked hard in my campaign, whether it was all the booth captains that did an outstanding job getting up, many of them at 3 am and 4 am, to go and work the booths or those who are what we call our roving booth captains that made sure they filled any holes that existed in terms of the booth network. We had some 300 or 400 volunteers out on polling day playing their part not only to get me re-elected but also to make sure that we saw Tony Abbott installed as the new Prime Minister of Australia. It was a success.
I want to particularly mention a few of people—it is always dangerous to do this. Peter Barlow did an outstanding job for me and has done so on numerous occasions as, let us call him, a special campaigner. He would stand on roundabouts, set up signage and do those types of things for me for literally hours on end and for weeks on end. I thank my campaign manager, Karen Embrey, and the balance of my staff: Karly Abbott, Ben Dillaway, Gloria Vicario, Jack Piggott and Jake Durrington. All of them did an outstanding job in helping to steer my campaign and to make sure that all aspects of my campaign—from the prepolls through to the polling booths, the postal votes and the mail-out campaign—ran relatively smoothly. There were a couple of hiccups with the mail campaign, but it all ran relatively smoothly. I thank them in particular not only for the outstanding work that they did during the campaign but also for the work that they do on a day-to-day basis to make sure that, when I am away at places like Canberra or I am travelling interstate, there is always a presence in my office and an open ear to the needs of my constituency, and that there is someone to deliver upon them.
I want to thank my family—my wife, Astra, and my two boys, Asher and Tennyson—who, sometimes through gritted teeth, bear the frequent absences of their father and husband doing this job down here in Canberra. It is not an easy life, political life. The demands on your time are constant and consistent and it is always family, unfortunately, that loses out in that battle. I do what I can to maintain that balance, but I want to acknowledge and honour and love my family for the privilege that they provide me in letting me do this role in this chamber. So to my family, to my staff, to my friends and to all of the party members: I thank you all for your support over so many elections, and I am grateful we were able to deliver a terrific outcome in Moncrieff, and even more importantly, to deliver a change of government here in Canberra.
I rise today to speak to the address-in-reply. It is indeed an honour to be re-elected into this, the 44th Parliament. This is a new coalition government with a new direction and new challenges that need to be addressed. This is a coalition government that will empower people rather than stand in their way. The coalition government has very different ideas from the former Labor government on what Australia can, and should, be. We believe that anyone can succeed with opportunity, enterprise and ambition. In fact, we want all Australians, whether young or old, to achieve their maximum potential. When people realise their potential there are no limits to what they can achieve or to the benefits that are provided to us as a great nation.
It is disappointing that, in their time in government, Labor created a culture of people stepping down rather than stepping up, and of accepting handouts rather than a helping hand. I want to see people putting their hands up and getting involved, and using the ambition, enterprise and opportunities available to them to get ahead. I want to develop a stronger community with less reliance on government and more individual enterprise. I admire people who take an idea and run with it. They are driven by ambition, and they create the opportunities to build their own success—for example, companies like the Varley group in our region, which is developing high-tech electronic vehicles. Last year when I toured the Daintree National Park with local member Warren Entsch, we visited Mossman Gorge Tourist Information Centre, and I saw an environmentally friendly electric tourist bus that impressed me no end. While talking to the operators I asked where they got the bus from, quite expecting the answer to be, 'from overseas'. I was absolutely floored when the reply was, 'from the Varley Group near Newcastle'—as I said, that is in my region.
I now understand what Varley have been up to. I knew they had developed a unique monocoque frame that was integral to the very successful Varley Fire Commander, and that they were testing prototype electronic cars, but I was not aware that they had developed electronic tourist buses. Jeff Phillips and his team never cease to amaze me with their innovation and approach to niche market problem-solving. It is great to see fellow Australians take innovation and opportunity to the next level to find their own niche market. This creates jobs and is great for our economy.
There are challenges ahead. Now in government, the coalition can see that there are many challenges ahead of us. We have had a good look at the books and can see that the Labor government has left us with more than a massive debt—they have created a dependency culture. In 2014 the new coalition government has been left with the challenge of guiding Australia out of this massive debt—which, according to Treasury, will peak at somewhere around $667 billion if rapid action is not taken to address Labor's fiscally irresponsible policies.
Let us be very clear. This is not a coalition-amassed debt. This is a Labor debt. It is all of their own doing, built from complete incompetence and a lack of understanding of what drives a successful economy and, therefore, a prosperous nation. It is reminiscent of the position that Labor left in 1996, but this time with a debt on steroids. In 1996 we were faced with what seemed an impossible task to guide this country out of a $96 billion debt towards a surplus, again due to the incompetent Labor government. And yet it appears they learned absolutely nothing about economic management from their 11 years in opposition. This time, in 2014, they have left Australia with an even bigger debt—a $260 billion debt that, by next month, we expect will explode out to $300 billion. And that debt is not slowing—we anticipate it will spiral upwards to between $400 billion and $500 billion until we are able to slow the debt and begin reducing it.
It is imperative that we, the coalition, arrest the debt. We, the coalition, have again accepted that challenge. It is we, the coalition, that have begun the process of balancing the books. It is we, the coalition, that have begun bringing some sanity and responsibility back to spending. It is we, the coalition, that have begun cutting bureaucratic red tape. And it is we, the coalition, who are determined once again to put Australian businesses in a position where they are able to thrive and invest and therefore to create new jobs with confidence. It is abundantly clear that it is we, the coalition, who have declared that Australia is once again open for business. It is not going to be easy. Unlike in 1996, we no longer have any large-scale assets we can privatise to help balance the books, and the debt is even higher than anyone could have dreamed of. The reality is that there is no magic pudding. And there is no sugar coating the solution. I will repeat that: there is no magic pudding; there is no sugar coating the solution.
When we lost government in 2007 we left this country in great economic shape. We delivered a $70 billion future fund; we invested $6 billion in higher education endowment funds; we put aside $2 billion for regional communication funds—which, by the way, could have assisted my electorate with the digital television debacle left by Labor. And, more importantly, we delivered a $22 billion cash surplus. Now our economy is in a dire position; our debt levels are high and unsustainable; and we, the coalition, have an enormous task ahead of us. It honestly angers me that the six years of Labor have put our country into such a terrible fiscal position.
In the 43rd Parliament I had the honour to serve as the shadow minister for tourism, and I would like to sincerely thank all those in the tourism industry who generously gave their time to mentor me, who worked with me as a team to develop strong policy driven by those with skin in the game. This policy of the coalition is a policy that this government will implement in full. We will implement it because we listened to the industry, and because it was developed hand in hand with the industry, understanding what they needed.
In the very first speech I gave to the tourism industry, at the ATEC conference, I said that the industry needed to speak with one voice and tell the government and the opposition what they really wanted. The tourism industry came together as one, and I appreciated working with them. I congratulate them, and I encourage them to maintain this united approach. It was this approach that saw the former Labor government back down on the proposed consumer price index increases to the Passenger Movement Charge. It was a key driver in our policy to freeze the Passenger Movement Charge for the first term of government.
We listen intently to the tourism industry. The tourism industry laid out its policy to place tourism in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. This is a natural fit, as the primary responsibility for Tourism Australia is to attract and grow international visitors to our shores. I believe it not only provides a more focused approach in attracting more international visitors to our shores, but investment as well. The tourism industry demanded ministerial representation in cabinet for tourism, and I believe that Andrew Robb as the Minister for Trade and Investment will serve them well in that role.
While there were many who took the time to engage, I particularly thank John Hart, chair of the National Tourism Alliance, and chief executive officer of Restaurant and Catering Australia. I also want to thank David Sheldon, and the Australian Regional Tourism Network, for their guidance and unfettered access in hosting policy discussions and development. I thank Jason Westbury of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, and John Lee the then chief executive officer of the Tourism and Transport Forum—and their members—for driving the Passenger Movement Charge reforms with one industry voice. I particularly thank Gary Crockett, the global executive chairman of China Ready & Accredited, and president of the Accommodation Association of Australia, for his work with the Chinese National Tourism Administration which helped drive our understanding of the need for policy to increase the lucrative Chinese free independent traveller market, by moving to multi-entry and extended time frame visas.
We have done this because we took the time to listen and to understand the needs of the whole of the tourism industry, whether it includes aviation, accommodation, or individual tourism providers. I would like to thank Scott Leach, the president of the Australian Hotels Association (NSW), for his work in providing access to his team, from accommodation providers through to hoteliers, so as to better understand their needs as a major employer group. In particular I thank a person who has become more than a mentor and a sounding board: he is a valued friend. That person is Andrew Burnes, from the AOT corporation, a former deputy chairman of Tourism Australia, and a person whose business has grown to what is perhaps the largest privately owned tourism business in Australia. There is nothing like testing an idea on someone with skin in the game, to get an accurate and economically sensible response. This is by no means an exhaustive list. There are so many more to thank that time prevents me. I have thanked many individually, as I have met up with them in my travels.
The election has come and gone, and I now serve in a new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry—my friend Ian Macfarlane. There are new challenges to address and opportunities to play in my part in making Australia great again. As I said in my maiden speech when I came to this House, I want to be a part of a team that turns the ship around to navigate a new direction towards prosperity.
Listening to your constituents in politics is critically important. So, it is beyond doubt that Labor's poor policies, and the carbon tax, have massively increased the cost of living for families—they said so at the last election. The removal of the carbon tax will reduce cost of living pressures on households and businesses. Some examples of the benefits that families will see are that they will be around $550 per annum better off; that household electricity bills will be around $200 lower than they otherwise would be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax; and that the average household gas bill will be around $70 lower in 2014-15 than it would otherwise have been with the $25.40 carbon tax. Business compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax.
The legislation to repeal the carbon tax is already through this House. It only needs to get through the Senate, and there is only one person standing in the way, and that is the Leader of the Opposition, 'Electricity Bill' Shorten, and the Labor members, because they have refused to listen to what the Australian public have said.
The electorate of Paterson is such a special electorate, filled with very special people. I sincerely thank all of my constituents for having continued faith in me to work in their best interests. I would like to make special mention of the team of friends and volunteers, and my staff, for helping me win my seat in the federal election of Paterson—with an increased margin yet again. The victory was a real team effort, not mine.
In 2013 we increased our vote from 55.37 per cent to 59.8 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. This is a massive increase from 1996, when we were in the marginal position of only 50.4 per cent on a two-party preferred vote. The seat has gone from being the most marginal seat in 1996, not just in the Hunter Valley but in all of Australia, to being the seat with one of the largest margins in the Hunter Valley. This has been despite redistributions that have gone against us. Again, I thank the constituents of Paterson who have invested their trust in me. I never forget where we started, and I always treat my constituents with the utmost respect they deserve. I will never take the people of Paterson for granted, and I will always maintain the attitude that Paterson is a very marginal seat.
There is a long, hard road ahead. There are issues I am working very hard on, like digital television, and mobile phone black spots. Most importantly, what we need to do is ensure people can stay in jobs in our local areas. Downturns in jobs through the mining industry, which then flow through the whole of our community, are really starting to come home, and we need to stop that. That is why it is important to get rid of the carbon tax, get rid of the mining tax, and repeal unnecessary legislation, to restore confidence to the business community.
It is very clear to me I would not be the member for Paterson if it were not for the support of my electorate, but in particular my wife, Cynthia, and my children David, Robbie and Samantha. To them I say thank you. I apologise for the times and the hours I have not been there, and I appreciate their generosity. I thank my staff, Adam Olsen, Simon Ryan, Jarrad Hamilton and Brooke Vitnell, my former staffer Brett Sundell and my tourism policy adviser, Alistair Mitchell, who put in the long, hard hours on the road to success.
I have learnt through the journey of life that nothing happens by chance, and I appreciate the massive efforts put in by my army of volunteers, in particular Doreen Bradley—and, of course, her companion dog, Lady—Steve and Ros Mudd, Dennis and Elizabeth Martin, Rob and Meg Olsen, Bill Garret, Howard Grigor, Sonny Morris and many, many more.
The organising of polling booths is a difficult and time-consuming job, and I wish to thank my zone captains Michael O'Halloran and Gary Hoson in the Great Lakes region, Chris Bowen down through Stroud and Dungog, Jarrad Hamilton and Doreen Bradley from Raymond Terrace-Tilligerry, Drew and Di Gibbs through the Port Stephens area and my federal electorate conference president, campaign director and long-time friend Bob Geoghegan in the East Maitland area. And, of course, I thank the nearly 1,000 volunteers who helped out during the campaign and on election day. I am honoured to have their support.
To those who helped at the shopping centres and the market days with our mobile office, I say thank you. You turned up whether it was hot or cold, wet or dry, windy or wonderful. You can now rest knowing that you have made a big difference. But the work starts again soon.
The long, hard road back to prosperity for our nation has begun. I accept the challenge and I will do all in my power to contribute to make a difference so that we can restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians.
I have enormous respect for the Governor-General. I think many Australians, hopefully all Australians, would agree that Her Excellency has done a very good job. I particularly enjoyed her outspokenness on some controversial issues of late. I also have great respect for the office of the Governor-General and, in fact, in 1989 I was the Army aide-de-camp to, first of all, His Excellency Sir Ninian Stephen for a short while, and then Bill Hayden in his first year. So I understand how Government House works. I understand the important work that Government House does. I make the point again that I have great respect for Her Excellency.
But I think there does need to be a greater public discussion about why, in mid-November last year, we again had the Australian representative of a foreign head of state open this parliament. It strikes me as an anachronism that the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and that our parliament is opened by her representative in this country. Surely we have grown up and moved on. I have fond feelings towards our mother country and what England did to settle us, help us grow and become a great nation. But, surely, now, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, it is beyond time that we had an Australian head of state and an Australian open this parliament. Moreover, I am referring not to someone who opens this parliament by reading a speech prepared by or, at least, approved by the Australian government but to someone who reads his or her own speech—a speech in which he or she is independent enough and free to say what he or she thinks that the parliament should achieve over its three years and what the government should achieve during its three years in power. Surely, it is beyond time that we have someone who when opening the parliament can stand up and tackle controversy, and lay out what is needed and what is expected during these challenging times.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen an Australian head of state open the 44th Parliament—and open the 45th Parliament—by making it clear that he or she expects the government of the day to tackle the tough issues. Let's face it, moving money around is relatively easy. Tackling policy and the tough policy challenges facing us is difficult. Wouldn't it be great if at the opening of the parliament our head of state said, 'I expect this government and this parliament to deal with the issue of problem gambling in this country.' Considering the fact that 95,000 Australian problem gamblers lose between them something like $5,000 million each year on the poker machines, wouldn't it be great for an Australian head of state to say that he or she expects the government to do something about that; that the government needs to be mindful of the fact that, for every one of those 95,000 problem gamblers, there are between five and 10 people adversely affected in some way; and that as a result of that $5,000 million lost, people are losing their jobs, they are going hungry, their kids are going hungry, they are living in houses without electricity and they are at a higher likelihood of taking their own lives.
Wouldn't it be great if an Australian head of state stood up and said at the opening of parliament, 'I expect this parliament and this government to tackle the big issues like the live animal export industry, which accounts for only eight per cent of the beef production in this country.' Wouldn't it be great if they were someone who stood up and said, 'I expect people to understand that that trade is not in Australia's economic self-interest, that it is systemically cruel and that it is not popular.' We need someone to drill down a bit and say, 'One of the reasons that beef producers are relying so much on the live animal export trade is the monopoly of Woolies and Coles.' That is why Australian beef producers are being paid no more now than they were being paid 15 years ago. Wouldn't it be good if at the opening of parliament an Australian head of state stood up and said, 'I expect the parliament and the next government to be a compassionate parliament and a compassionate government.' Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that the cuts to foreign aid which have now been announced—cuts of more than $100 million—are simply not acceptable; that cutting foreign aid is not the right thing to do and that it is also not in Australia's self-interest; that the way to enhance Australia's security is to build capacity in our nation and to help countries around us to be stable and to have the capacity to deal with challenges such as our changing climate? Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that 14 years ago the Howard government committed Australia to the millennium goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income going to foreign aid, that we are still only at about half that or less, and that not only is our gross level of foreign aid inadequate but there are also some glaring deficiencies about where we are paying aid.
Deputy Speaker, did you know that in this financial year we are only going to give Iraq $11.3 million out of our foreign development aid budget of about $5 billion? Surely there is something wrong with that. This is a country that is anarchic, and we helped create the circumstances in which that anarchy is happening. Surely we have a moral obligation to give more than $11.3 million to that country out of a foreign aid budget of $5 billion. This financial year we will give $76.1 million to Pakistan even though Pakistan is host to 1.6 million Afghan refugees. There is something out of whack here, I suggest. We are demonising Afghan asylum seekers who are trying to come to Australia when they flee Afghanistan, another country that is an anarchic and where the central government has little or no authority outside the capital, and they are transiting through Pakistan, a developing country itself, with very limited resources and capacity. Yet not only do we demonise the Afghan asylum seekers; we only give Pakistan $76.1 million which would in part help to improve the circumstances of those Afghan refugees that are resident in that country.
I come back to my point about an independent Australian head of state tackling the tough issues and, instead of reading out a speech prepared by the government or at least approved by the government, being able to sit in the President's chair in the Senate and actually lay out what her expectations are of the new parliament and the new government, to actually say what she hopes will be achieved, to actually point out the areas which are deficient and which she expects a competent parliament and a competent government to address. I reckon he or she in those circumstances would sound a warning that Australia needs to start acting like a rich and civilised country, to start acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and to start treating people who try and make it to Australia with more compassion. As a signatory to the refugee convention, we have a legal obligation to give people protection, to hear their claims and to give them refuge if their claims are found to be accurate. Instead, what do we do? We have offshore processing. We have Manus Island and Nauru. We have basically all of Australia excised from Australia, from our migration zone—as bizarre as that would appear to be. I make the point again: what we should be doing instead of our current regime, which is supported in large part by the Labor opposition, I would add, is acting like a rich and civilised country, acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and showing a bit more compassion to those who come to our shore.
Do you know what I would imagine might also be in that speech, Deputy Speaker? A call to this parliament and to this government to have a more compassionate response to disadvantaged Australians. In this financial year, federal government outlays will be approximately $400 billion—that is, four hundred thousand million dollars. That is an enormous amount of money, and more than enough to look after those people in our community genuinely in need. But it is not happening, whether it be the person who is waiting years for a hip replacement in my own state or someone who is on Newstart.
A single person with no dependants receives $501 a fortnight on Newstart. In other words, an unemployed person in Australia, single man or woman, no children, over the early 20s, gets $250.50 a week to live on. This is in a country where just about anywhere in the country you are going to have to pay a couple of hundred dollars a week to rent a basic flat or unit or a modest house. Then we expect that person to have enough money to buy a smart set of clothes, to have a computer and an internet connection so they can research the job market and apply for jobs online, to be well fed and healthy and to be able to front up and do a good job at a job interview. It does not work. In fact, even industry groups are saying that if you want job seekers to have better prospects you have got to pay them more than $250.50 a week.
If I was writing the speech for the opening of parliament I would probably say to the parliament and to the new government: get a copy of the ACOSS Budget Priorities Statement for 2014-15 and have a read of it because it is an excellent blueprint for this parliament and for any government to follow. Do you know what I would also do, Deputy Speaker? I would refer them to a paragraph on page 3 of that statement—and excuse me if I read it, it is a longish paragraph, but I think I have time. It is very telling and I would ask in particular that members of the government who are now sitting here pay attention to this. It says:
Despite the current debates about increased social security spending, Australia's spending remains comparatively low. The real Budget problems lie elsewhere. Expenditures on social security payments in 2013 were 8.6% of … (GDP) compared with an … OECD average of 13%. Of the $28 billion of growth in social security between 2002 and 2012 (after inflation), $13 billion comprised increases in Age Pension … and $9 billion came from increases in family payment expenses (due to increases in payment rates, easing of income tests, and the introduction of the Baby Bonus and the Schoolkids Bonus).
It goes on—and this is the part I would particularly like to emphasise and bring to the attention of the government:
Expenditure on Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment declined by $4 billion over that period—
that is between 2002 and 2012—
despite a rise (with higher unemployment) during the … (GFC). A sharp increase in the number of Newstart Allowance recipients in 2013 was mainly due to the transfer of approximately 80,000 sole parents in that year from the higher Parenting Payment to the lower Newstart Allowance. Despite claims of an inexorable rise in reliance on the Disability Support Pension, the number of recipients peaked in the mid 2000s—
That is the mid-2000 years. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that at the moment we in fact have a beat-up about what is going on with Centrelink benefits.
I am talking about what a speech at the opening of a parliament might sound like. What might it sound like if we had an Australian head of state, an independent head of state—reading a speech that was not written by the government nor approved by the government but, instead—standing up as an independent strong leadership figure in our community, telling the new parliament, telling the government, about some of the problems in our community and about where he, or she, expects the new parliament and the new government to focus their attention. I suspect in that speech the Australian head of state would also urge the new government to stand up to foreign governments. He, or she, would probably lament the fact that it took so many decades for Australia to finally take action over East Timor; and give credit, where it is due, to the Howard government that it did finally act. But why did it take so long? Why did it take so long for Australia to do the right thing?
I am sure the speech at the opening of parliament would address current problems—for example, the silence of successive Australian governments to the Indonesian occupation of West Papua. When is the last time an Australian government—or, for that matter, many people in this place—stood up and made the point that the Indonesian behaviour in West Papua has been, and continues to be, completely and utterly unacceptable and that it is no better than what they did in East Timor. Eventually we grew up; we grew a spine and we took action over East Timor. But there is a deafening silence over what the Indonesians are doing in West Papua. Since 1962, it is estimated that 100,000 West Papuans have been killed or have disappeared under the brutal military regime in place there.
The Indonesians, and maybe the Australian government, say, 'Well, there was an act of self-determination in 1969', when the Indonesians progressed their so-called 'Act of Free Choice'. But do you know how many West Papuans were allowed to vote at that referendum in 1969? One thousand and twenty-five. Only 1,025 West Papuans were allowed to vote about their future. No wonder it went down. In other words, the Indonesian presence there clearly continues to be without the support of the West Papuans and should be condemned by the Australian government.
So too with Tibet. I give credit where it is due to former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He did take a stronger position than any other prime minister, before or since, about the Chinese occupation of Tibet. But if I was writing a speech at the opening of parliament, I would urge the new parliament and the new government to take a stronger position on Tibet and to say to the Chinese that what is going on there is unacceptable, that what they must do is preserve Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic traditions, safeguard its fragile environment, and protect the human rights of the Tibetan people, including the rights of the nomads to maintain their traditional way of life.
I could go on, but I am sure by now that everyone gets the point I am trying to drive home. Not only am I saying that, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, surely enough time has passed and we should move to become a republic; I am also saying that there should be an Australian head of state who sits in the president's chair at the opening of a future parliament. He, or she, should speak for all Australians as a strong leadership figure and say to the new parliament and government, at that point in the future, that this is what he, or she, expects that parliament and that government to do. He, or she, should not read out a speech written by the Prime Minister's department or office, or approved by it. He, or she, should be a strong independent leadership figure.
In fact, I would go further and say that it would be in this country's best interests to eventually have a strong independent Australian head of state who balances the head of government, each being a check on each other—neither would have a monopoly on power. That would be a better arrangement than what we have currently. I qualify that by acknowledging that we are fortunate enough to live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies on the planet—and a great nation. Even though we still have the Union Jack at the top of the flag, we are a great independent nation. But we could be so much more. We could be so much more if we take that step toward being an independent nation with an Australia head of state.
Let's change the flag and, when we have the discussion, let us not cloud the issue with misinformation and untruths. This line that we cannot change the flag because so many Australian soldiers fought and died under the current flag is actually untrue. The fact is the blue ensign was only legislated as the official flag in the 1950s. Most Australians who have fought and died for this country have done so under the Union Jack and under the red ensign—a flag that now is not in widespread use except by the merchant navy. We need to have an honest and open discussion about this, and we need people in this place to be leadership figures to drive that debate into the future.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the address-in-reply debate in this 44th Parliament. It is an opportunity, as the member for Denison mentioned, to talk broadly about issues in your electorate, particularly across the country. I am the last speaker in the chamber to speak on this address-in-reply, and this afternoon copies of the speeches will be delivered to Her Excellency, the Governor-General. I am looking forward to making that visit to Yarralumla as I am sure the Speaker is and the committee that we appointed at the beginning of the parliament.
I should say too that, unusually, in this parliament the government allowed the entire address-in-reply debate to occur in this chamber. I made that decision as Leader of the House because I have always believed—and this is my eighth parliament—the address-in-reply is a really important part of the parliamentary process. As members would know, the Governor-General comes to the Senate chamber—and we all go to the Senate chamber to listen to the speech of the Governor-General—and outlines the new government's program, or the re-elected government's program and, therefore, people will find in that speech the priorities of the government and the values of the government. I think it helps if the members of parliament who respond during the address-in-reply debate can do so in a respectful way. The House of Representatives is the premier chamber of the parliament. I think it shows respect to the Crown and to the Governor-General himself or herself and a genuine belief in the government's program, or the opposition's counter to that program, to hold this debate in the House of Representatives, so I made the decision that we would conduct this debate here.
We are finishing this address-in-reply debate today. I am pleased to be doing so before the Governor-General retires and is replaced with a new Governor-General. We will deliver this to her this afternoon and it will, if you like, finish her period in office as Governor-General, which has been excellent. This will finish the debate we have held here in the chamber on the Governor-General's speech.
Today this is an opportunity to talk generally about the government getting on with the job. I would also like to comment a bit about some of the local issues, some of the promises I made to my electorate of Sturt before the election in 2013 and how we are progressing with that. As members would know, I was elected first in 1993 and I have been elected seven times since then, so I, along with only a handful of members, including the Speaker, have seen much come and go in those 21 years. In fact, I had my anniversary last Friday, on 13 March.
Hear, hear!
I thank the minister. We are getting on with the job of addressing each of the issues upon which the election turned. We promised we would abolish the carbon tax. We have introduced and passed legislation in this place to do just that. It now behoves the opposition to pass that legislation to abolish the carbon tax if they genuinely believe in reducing the cost of living for Australian families and businesses. If they genuinely want to relieve the pressure on Australian families—and energy prices have such an impact on the prices people pay in the supermarket or at the petrol bowser—and the cost to business of doing business, the opposition would pass the carbon tax repeal legislation that sits in the Senate, especially given that there was no doubt at all before the election that we would abolish the carbon tax should we be elected. From December 2009 when the coalition adopted a position on the emissions trading scheme right through to the previous government's broken promise on the carbon tax to today we have been consistent about having a direct action approach to climate change rather than a taxation and regulatory approach to climate change. So there is no doubt that, if the Labor Party were being faithful to the mandate of the Australian people at the election, they would pass the carbon tax abolition bills. The same pertains to the mining tax. Again we promised to repeal this tax and a bill sits in the Senate waiting for the Labor Party to respect the mandate of the Australian people. So we are getting on with the job of keeping our election promises of abolishing the carbon tax and abolishing the mining tax.
We have spectacularly succeeded in keeping our election promise in relation to people smugglers. We said we would reinstitute the policies of the Howard government that protected our borders and stop the people smugglers' trade in its tracks. I think we are up to almost 90 days where there has been no successful arrival of an unauthorised boat carrying unauthorised passengers. That is a remarkable achievement. Full credit goes to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who has brought together under Operation Sovereign Borders the manifestation of our election commitment to stop the boats and to break the people smugglers' business model.
It is remarkable inasmuch as many people said it could not be done. The now opposition when in government said it was impossible to stop the boats and protect our borders. In the period from August 2008 to the time when they lost office 50,000 unauthorised arrivals came. It was a manifest failure of policy. They said it could not be any different to that. Many of their supporters, friends in the press gallery and the general commentariat agreed that it could not be done, yet within seven months the minister for immigration, because of a courageous and steadfast approach to this issue, has done exactly what we said we would do before the election—and that is get control of our refugee program into Australia and get control of our humanitarian program so that people waiting around the world who have applied through the correct processes, whether it is the Karen in Thailand or the Sudanese in Kenya, would not be pushed aside by those who can pay people smugglers. It is a great achievement and it is a manifestation of us keeping our election promises.
We said we would move the industrial relations regulatory framework back to the sensible centre. I was in the House last month introducing bills that did just that—the Fair Work Amendment Bill. We have done so through trying to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a royal commission into union corruption and the Registered Organisations Commission, which will stop dodgy union officials from ripping off hardworking union members. Most of these measures are being opposed by the opposition in the Senate, but I am hopeful that, if the Labor Party has not yet come to its senses, the new Senate in July this year will pass much of this legislation and start the process of reducing the tax burden, reducing the regulatory burden and moving the IR debate back to the sensible centre.
We have also started the process of better budgetary management, ending the waste and mismanagement under the Labor era. We are trying to stop the unnecessary spending in certain areas that has been damaging our budget bottom line, leading us to borrow more and more from overseas—in fact, if no further action is taken to rein in debt there will be $667 billion of government debt—and of course we are trying to address Labor's $127 billion of deficits they accumulated over the period they were in office.
In the budget in May, we will lay down the markers that are necessary to recalibrate the financial management of the Commonwealth government. It is a massive budget, and has an enormous impact on the Australian economy. Unless it is managed prudently, and dare I say it parsimoniously, then we will only continue to see the profligate spending, the ballooning of spending that occurred under Labor for six years. That has left our country in not as good an economic position as we left it in 2007, when against our wishes the keys to the Treasury were handed over to the then Labor opposition.
In my own electorate of Sturt, we made a number of promises before the election, which we intend to keep. One of the promises that I made was that I would do everything I could to keep the Italian Consulate in my electorate of Sturt, in Adelaide. We waged quite a public campaign collecting signatures on the traditional petition and writing to and lobbying the Italian government in Rome. Also, we worked with the local state members of parliament. These are John Gardner, the member for Morialta, in my electorate, who was recently re-elected on Saturday with an increased majority; and Vincent Tarzia who was the then Liberal candidate for Hartley, in my electorate. I am happy to say that on Saturday he was elected to the seat of Hartley with a very substantial swing. Along with John Gardner, he and I worked tirelessly to ensure the Italian Consulate remained open in Adelaide. I am happy to say that after the federal election but before the state election, the Italian government announced that they would be maintaining the Italian Consulate. This means the thousands of my Italian constituents will be able to continue to access the Consulate's electoral and notary services, registrar services, issuing of passports and dealing with social security issues between Italy and Australia.
Before the election, on our rubric of the Safer Streets Safer Communities grants program we also promised that we would install CCTV cameras in the northern part of my electorate, at the Turramurra Recreation Centre in Highbury. This provides added security for about 2½ thousand people who use that centre weekly. It curbs graffiti, vandalism and break-ins that occur in the Turramurra Recreation Centre. That is a $69,000 commitment to CCTV cameras. I am pleased to say that we will be proceeding with that commitment. Also under the Safer Streets Safer Communities grants program, we intend to install improved lighting, particularly car park lighting, at the Balmoral Reserve in Dernancourt. This is also in the northern part of my electorate. Balmoral Reserve was upgraded by the Tea Tree Gully Council. I am pleased to say that we are going to contribute to that upgrading through better lighting and better safety and security for the good residents of Dernancourt.
Also before the election, I made a number of commitments to fund sporting and community operations. The most notable of those of course is the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, a 1970s leisure centre which has been in need of an upgrade for a very long time. I am pleased to say that the now Prime Minister came to my electorate before the election and recommitted to a $7½ million grant to the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. Maybe they can come up with a more modern name now that we are redoing the centre! This upgrade will have a very important impact on recreation, sports and activities in the north-eastern part of my electorate. It already provides for a large number of families and sporting organisations. These include the Norwood Flames Basketball Club, the Campbelltown Futsal Association, squash courts and older leisure organisations or groups. This will mean a massive increase in the number of people who will be able to use the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. From the existing 8,000 people a month who use this centre, upwards of 20,000 people a month will be able to use it. They are going to install a proper sized, eight-lane swimming pool and additional pools for teaching swimming and for toddlers. There will be an enhanced squash court, more basketball courts, futsal courts and an indoor soccer court. The ubiquitous cafe will be installed at the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, along with meeting rooms and administration areas. It will be a very big improvement on sporting facilities in the north-east. I am sure the many of the member for Makin's constituents will use the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, as will mine.
The state government has made a contribution as well. The majority of the money is coming from the federal government, and also the Campbelltown City Council is making a similar contribution. The whole package is about $20 million spent on sport and recreation in my electorate. I have worked very closely with the Campbelltown City Council over the previous few years to deliver that project. I single out Helen Nichols, because she is the Chair of the Campbelltown Leisure Centre Steering Committee. It has been one of the totemic issues in my electorate for many years. Over several elections, the previous federal Labor government refused to fund it, but I am happy to say that we will fund it. The money will flow very soon. The necessary documentation has been put in place, and hopefully that will be up and running in the next year or two.
Under the Community Development Grants Program, we promised that we would help the Burnside Hockey Club, which is in the southern part of my electorate, to build a new hockey pitch costing $400,000. They will also need to add to that amount of money. They will be seeking support from other organisations to do so. Right now, they are looking for the best site in Adelaide's eastern suburbs to build the hockey pitch. The Burnside Hockey Club is one of the biggest and best hockey clubs in South Australia. It has been in need of a permanent hockey pitch home for some time. Many of the families in my electorate are members of the Burnside Hockey Club. I am very glad to be able to take credit for securing that $400,000 for the Burnside Hockey Club. If they read this transcript of Hansard, I remind them that they have to have a new pitch site six months from now. They have been looking for a while. I hope the state government, whether it is Liberal or Labor, will assist them to find that hockey pitch. Any one of the non-government or government schools in my electorate who might have need for an injection of funds for the hockey pitch in their own schools—I am sure they will be able to come to some arrangement with the Burnside Hockey Club. I promised my colleagues that I would not speak for the full 20 minutes, so I will not do so. I should add in passing that I continue my campaign to bring the skull of Pemulwuy, the Aboriginal figure from history, the Aboriginal warrior from the early part of the colony in Sydney, from where you hail Madam Speaker, back to Australia from the Natural History Museum in Britain. It has been a much slower process than I anticipated. I note that His Royal Highness Prince William will be visiting Australia again soon. The last time he was here he went to Redfern and promised that he would help bring back the skull and the remains of Pemulwuy. I have continued that campaign. I hope that Prince William will continue to assist us to do so. The Natural History Museum in London say that they cannot identify the actual remains of Pemulwuy, but we have heard that song before and I think the answer with this campaign is to keep dripping away on the stone and eventually we will succeed.
Pemulwuy is a very important historical figure for Indigenous Australians because much of the story about Indigenous history, from the early part of the colonisation of Australia, was one of disease, very poor treatment and the sense that the Indigenous people were simply badly treated with no resistance. The story of Pemulwuy is one of resistance to the British colonisation. I think we have created the greatest country in the world but we should not bury our stories. The story of Pemulwuy is one that is more inspiring in many respects for young Indigenous Australians because it shows that they had figures of great general ship who succeeded in fighting what they regarded as an unwelcome incursion in Australia. That story is as interesting as all the other stories in our Indigenous past. I hope that we can bring Pemulwuy's remains back to Australia where they belong—they should never have been removed in the first place—and in doing so, perhaps, reinvigorate the interest in his story, which is written by a man called Eric Willmot, who was the Director-General of Education in South Australia and is now retired. I know that there are people who wish to create a movie about Pemulwuy, a digital story of Pemulwuy as part of the curriculum development of Indigenous history. I very much support those efforts and I look forward to continuing that campaign over this 44th Parliament.
The question is that the address be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I have ascertained that Her Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House at 4 pm today. The sitting will be suspended at approximately 3.30 pm. I shall be glad if the mover and the seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 is about providing assistance to young people. It creates the job commitment bonus for young Australians aged 18 to 30 who have been receiving Newstart allowance or youth allowance, of course other than those who are apprentices or full-time students for a period of at least 12 months. The bill also allows for a tax-free payment of $2,500 dollars if they remain in gainful work and are off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
According to the bill, recipients will also qualify for a further tax-free bonus payment of $4,000 if they remain in continuous gainful work for a further 12 months—that is, 24 months of continuous work for the full payment of $6,500 dollars. This bill also mentions the relocation assistance to take up a job program, providing financial assistance to long-term unemployed job seekers with participation requirements, who have also been receiving Newstart, youth allowance, other than those that are apprentices or full-time students, or parenting payment, for at least the preceding 12 months, to relocate for the purposes of commencing ongoing employment. According to the legislation, this program is to be demand-driven and provide up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers relocating to a regional area, or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers relocating to a metropolitan area, with an additional $3,000 for families with dependant children who are relocating.
Interestingly, it does appear that the legislation is not required to allow for this payment as it is simply an increase in payments that already exist. However, I note that this bill also allows for a -payment period for participants who leave their employment without good reason within six months after receiving this payment of 26 weeks, rather than the 12 weeks which currently apply to the relocation payments made under Labor's Move 2 Work program. Labor is very concerned about the doubling of this non-payment period for those recipients who take up the relocation assistance to take up a job program where something may stop this individual from working—26 weeks seems particularly harsh. I note that there is a hardship provision for people adversely affected by this and I trust that it will be used. I want to quote the following from the explanatory memorandum to the bill:
… affected persons will still have the benefit of the usual operation of existing hardship waiver provisions, so that the non-payment period will not prevent a person from accessing essentials, for example basic levels of health care, housing, or sanitation. In particular, the current subsection 42S(4) provides that a person’s unemployment non-payment period may be ended on the grounds of severe financial hardship if the person is within a class of persons specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection 42S(5)[3] … this will continue to apply.
Labor is not supportive of this extension to the non-payment period and accordingly we would like to see the government commit to reviewing the impact on these recipients publicly, particularly on its impact on job seekers' ability to find work, to maintain accommodation and to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Labor does not accept that a person can receive no income support payments for six months and still be ready to work. Youth unemployment is a big issue for Australia and for young Australians. In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school and to get the training and higher education they needed for well-paying jobs. As a government we considered a whole range of different policies to address the issue of youth unemployment. It is one of the most important issues any government faces. Indeed, under Labor, we improved training and employment services for young people.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed.
For the past 10 years, I have been the proud patron of the Lymphoedema Association of Queensland. Lymphoedema is a chronic swelling that occurs usually in the arms and legs when the body's lymphatic system fails to function properly. For many sufferers ordinary everyday activities can be difficult and their quality of life is affected. This can particularly be the case for lymphoedema sufferers when the effects of hot and humid conditions increase swelling, but things can be just as difficult at other times of the year as well.
March is Lymphoedema Awareness Month and the theme this year is 'Lymphoedema—Survive and Thrive'. Throughout the month, the Lymphoedema Association of Queensland is conducting a number of free information sessions across Brisbane to help raise awareness of this condition and its treatment. I want to put on the record my absolute appreciation for Nerida Smith and all of her committee at the Lymphoedema Association of Queensland. From my time as patron, I know there are people in the community who may or may not know they have the condition and maybe worried about it. I want to assure them that lymphoedema is treatable and support is close at hand in the form of the work done by the Lymphoedema Association of Queensland and its strong support network. It has been a privilege to work with them over the last 10 years and I will continue to do so. I want to commend the association for the wonderful work that they do in supporting sufferers and educating the general and medical community about the condition. I wish them well for Lymphoedema Awareness Month.
Last week I lost a friend to leukaemia. The Secretary of the Australian Services Union, Ms Kath Nelson, lost her battle with leukaemia at the age of 43. I want to give my condolences to her partner, Brett, and her son, Spencer. I also want to talk about the important work of the Leukaemia Foundation. Another friend of mine was diagnosed with leukaemia 10 years ago and he was fortunate to have had a successful bone marrow transplant. I am very grateful that he still around today. For those personal reasons it is clear to me that the Leukaemia Foundation is of great significance. I am pleased to have supported the Shave for a Cure event conducted on the Saturday just gone. The event was arranged by a young woman by the name of Tamarah Yarrow at Common Ground in Brisbane, where I was able to shave her head in the name of fundraising for the Leukaemia Foundation. I am pleased to have supported the Leukaemia Foundation and I am pleased to have supported that event in particular as the young woman concerned is someone who is very keen on finding a career in event management. Tamarah and a lot of the people present had been touched by leukaemia in their lives. I encourage everyone to log onto the Leukaemia Foundation website, if they have not yet donated to Shave for a Cure, and click on the donation button on the website and make a donation.
On Friday, 14 March I was very pleased to join the Minister for Transport the Hon. Warren Truss and the Western Australian Premier the Hon. Colin Barnett in announcing a $67.1 million upgrade to the Great Eastern Highway between Walgoolan and Coolgardie. The Great Eastern Highway is the main road freight artery between Western Australia and the East Coast as well as being a critical corridor for mining equipment and supplies for the Eastern Goldfields, centred around Kalgoorlie. The planned upgrades, which include some realignment, widening the road to nine metres with a one-metre shoulder and the construction of three overtaking lanes between Coolgardie and Bullabulling, have been identified as a priority by the main roads department for over 10 years—these upgrades are long overdue.
Coolgardie Shire President Mr Mal Cullen—who attended a site inspection with me, the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport the Hon. Jim Chown and the member for Eyre the Hon. Graham Jacobs—said he believed the project would significantly improve the economy for Coolgardie and would certainly be a boon for local businesses. The major benefit for the residents of the Goldfields will be improved road safety on a stretch of road that has seen far too many fatalities. I thank Minister Truss for his support for this project and the government for the $42.1 million commitment to this vital infrastructure upgrade.
Today, on this St Patrick's Day, I would like to say 'Slainte' to all the Irish men and women in Australia. This is a day when many millions of Australians celebrate their Irish ancestry in a relentlessly inclusive process where absolutely everyone can gain honorary Irishness for the day. Yesterday we had yet another brilliant St Patrick's Day parade through the streets of Leederville and I want to pay tribute to the work of Karen Hennessy and her brilliant team from Irish Families in Perth and to Claddagh. They represent a group of people who are not only helping the many thousands of Irish people who have come into Western Australia and into Perth over the last few years but are also connecting them with those of us from, the older stages of the Diaspora. It is vital and valuable work. We really did have a brilliant day and thank you very much for that, Karen.
Today we celebrate St Patrick's Day. Two weeks ago Gilmore celebrated International Women's Day with a small gathering of women and their families for the Meroogal Awards. Women deserve more than one day to celebrate their significant contributions to culture, social wellbeing and support for others. Meroogal House, normally the traditional venue for this event, was home to four generations of women—all skilled and well read. Their old house has become a focus for recognising women working for women. This year, fifteen local women were presented with a certificate and we learned of a small part of their service in the community. The awards were given to: Karen Anstiss, a tireless advocate for disability employment; Kelly Arnold and Louise Williams, for supporting victims of domestic violence; Sister Beverly Cassidy and June Hendy, for helping migrants and refugees settle and learn English; Auntie Wendy, for promoting cultural awareness for children at Wreck Bay; Betty Dale from Currarong and Jean Huckell from Shoalhaven Heads, both volunteers for Meals on Wheels as well as participants in committee work; Maria Firkin, for volunteering at the East Nowra Neighbourhood Centre; Wendy Hobbs, who is involved in so many partnership building ventures and takes time for the homeless youth living in the caves; Lynda Mayo, who volunteers for many community groups; Tania Morandini, who assists local artists at the Shoalhaven Arts Centre; Jen Saunders, who established Squid Studio for emerging artists; Sylvia Timbery, who is dedicated to increasing access for women's services; and Fay Worner, for creating, maintaining, and helping to grow partnerships and employment opportunities for Indigenous women. Each one of these fantastic women is an inspiration to the rest of us, with their tireless giving to others, and this is a moment to recognise the work they do in our community. (Time expired)
I rise today to acknowledge an exceptional Canberra businesswoman, Christine Macauley. Last month Kris was inducted into the Australian Businesswomen's Network Hall of Fame. This hall of fame recognises women who have been exemplary in their industries, are trailblazers and demonstrate inspiring and aspiring business journeys.
Kris and her husband Colin own Robbo's Motorcycles, a well-known local business located in Fyshwick. Robbo's has a rich history dealing in Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Not only does Robbo's service and sell new and used motorcycles; it is also hub for the Harley enthusiasts of the Canberra region.
Kris wanted to be more involved in the family business and she wanted a formal education so that she could better support the running of Robbo's. She enrolled at the University of Canberra, where she undertook a Bachelor of Communications. She went on to complete her master's and is currently working on her PhD on 'Wives in Business'.
She has been actively involved in the Canberra small business community and continues to advocate for the needs of all Canberra's small businesses—particularly women in business. She was a finalist for the 2011 University of Canberra Distinguished Alumni Award for Professional Achievement and received an Order of Australia in the 2013 Queen's Birthday Awards.
Canberra is very proud of Kris, who has been rightfully recognised for her wonderful achievements.
I also acknowledge that my 90-second statement today was researched and written by Ruby Whalan, a 16-year-old student from Canberra College who did work experience in my office two weeks ago. We loved having you with us, Ruby. Thanks so much.
There are few towns in Australia which can celebrate 200 years since their first settlement. A few weeks ago I joined just such a celebration at Longford, a major town in the northern part of my electorate of Lyons. The Longford community and friends gathered on the village green to cut the giant birthday cake and get involved in activities appropriate for such a significant occasion. An exhibition of historic and unusual motor vehicles on the green, and displays of historic photographs and other artefacts at the school, the fire brigade, the RSL club and the local National Trust helped build the atmosphere.
The range of activities, with a historic flavour, included a novelty foot race. A number of us tried to no avail, but congratulations go to members of the Murfett family, from Longford, who collected all the winners' ribbons, presented by His Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, Peter Underwood.
Longford was settled at the confluence of the South Esk and Lake rivers only a few years after Hobart, Australia's second oldest town, was established. Longford and the Northern Midlands were developed as the food bowl for the early colonies of New South Wales and Tasmania. As such, the area was one of Australia's most important early settlements.
There will be further 200-year birthday celebrations at the town's agricultural and pastoral show, held in October later this year. My congratulations go to the organising committee for their hard work, and in particular to their chair, Mr Jeff Carins.
On 12 March I was fortunate to join former Premier of New South Wales Kristina Keneally at the International Women's Day celebration at The Deli Women's and Children's Centre in Eastlakes in our community. Since 1979, The Deli has been providing wonderful services to members of our community and seeks to ensure that women, children and families, particularly those affected by domestic violence, are happy, safe, healthy and able to participate in our community. The Deli's main focus is providing support services for victims of domestic violence, children's services and family support. Last Wednesday I was fortunate to join the staff, volunteers, clients and their children of The Deli for a celebration of women's rights and the important services that The Deli provides for our communities. The activities on the day included a playgroup, jewellery-making, sausage sizzle, cake-making and awards for the best dressed boy, girl and adult.
I pay tribute and thanks to Vicki Johnston, the CEO of The Deli, and her wonderful board, staff and volunteers and thank them for their service to our community.
I rise today to pay tribute and bid farewell to a remarkable lady, Margaret Elizabeth Talarico, fondly known as Betty, who passed away on 6 March 2014. Betty was a respected member of the Central Coast community. Betty was a fighter who stood firm in her belief in Queen and country, and led the charge on many local community causes, earning her the reputation as 'Betty Blockbuster'—an appropriate name given Betty's dedication to the community.
Betty was a fiercely proud Australian, dedicating her time and energy to family, friends, political causes as well as numerous Central Coast community and environmental groups. Betty loved Bateau Bay and its beaches and fought to protect the local environment through volunteer work with the Bateau Bay Bushrangers and Save Our Water.
I came to know Betty through our association with the Liberal Party. Those within the party will remember Betty for her warm and friendly smile. Betty was a strong advocate for Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, No Republic and Save Our Flag. As a supporter of Dying With Dignity, Betty passed with dignity on her terms.
Betty was immensely proud of her family and her life. She asked us not to cry but to smile, not to mourn her passing but to remember and celebrate the life she had lived. I offer my sincere condolences to Betty's family, who can be proud of her legacy and dedication to our community.
Today thousands of Australians of Hindu, Subcontinent and South Asian heritage are celebrating Holi—the festival of colours. Holi signifies the end of winter and the arrival of spring. It is primarily celebrated in India, Nepal and other regions of the world with large Hindu populations but in recent times has spread across parts of Europe, North America and Australia. Holi is celebrated in two parts: first, the burning of Holika, a fire signifying the victory of good over evil; second, the next morning, is the fun of singing, dancing, playing and applying colour to one another with dye and water.
Apart from its deep religious significance, Holi has tremendous cultural significance. Socially, Holi is an icebreaker; any conservative and feudal societal structure breaks down for the day. Forgetting class, caste, creed and gender, men and women go out to colour each other in a spirit of solidarity—often randomly and by surprise, but all in good humour. These festivities set the tone for happier times ahead and the arrival of spring.
Holi is celebrated by Hindus and many other communities in Australia with great joy, and I know it will be thoroughly enjoyed by many residents in my electorate of Greenway, which kicked things off with a grand Holi program yesterday in The Ponds. I wish Happy Holi to all Hindus, and everyone celebrating today and this week.
I rise today to pay tribute to an esteemed Australian and Ryan constituent, Mr Robert O'Keeffe, who was recently presented with a 2013-14 Lifetime Achiever Award for Queensland by the Restaurant and Catering Association. With more than 25 years experience in the meetings and events industry in Australia, Bob has held a number of positions on national and local industry boards and committees and is currently a member of the peak industry bodies Business Events Council of Australia and the Exhibition and Events Association of Australasia. Bob has been at the helm of the award-winning Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre as its general manager since its opening in 1995. Under his leadership the centre has established an enviable reputation as Australia's most awarded convention centre and one of the world's leading venues. Bob has been the driving force behind the centre's uncompromising commitment to quality and the philosophy of using only the best local seasonal produce.
The centre has won over 62 catering awards including being judged Australia's best function centre caterer on three occasions and has been voted world's best in the international customer survey. I commend Bob for his outstanding contribution to the industry and congratulate Bob and Julie on this well-deserved award.
On Tuesday 11 March I had the pleasure of meeting with staff and participants of the Youth Connections provider in Bendigo, St Luke's Anglicare. I was briefed by staff and had the pleasure of hearing from four young participants who have participated in the program about the benefits that they have had from being involved in the Youth Connections program.
Youth Connections assists young people aged 13 to 19 who have disengaged. They are not actively involved in education. The program aims to reconnect them with education, further training and employment. Service delivery is characterised by and focused on an individual intensive case-management model—and it works. Through the work that it does, Youth Connections with the Youth Central team ensure that young people in Bendigo are staying connected. The four young people that I met with spoke about how one of them has got a full-time job working in the hospitality industry. Another had re-engaged with mainstream education and was about to start working part time in a hardware store. I was most moved though by a young woman who said that she had decided to return to school and pursue her dream of becoming a diesel mechanic in the Army. She has a career and future ahead of her.
The St Luke's team and Youth Connections are worried about funding. Funding has not been guaranteed past 2015 and I encourage the current government to consider the importance of this program in the upcoming budget.
It is with great pleasure today that I rise to acknowledge the 150th anniversary of the first settlement by German settlers of the suburb of Bethania. On Sunday, 23 February, I attended the unveiling of a new memorial cairn and plaque at Edens Landing, along with our state member Mr Mike Latter and local councillor Jennie Breen. Unfortunately a new cairn had to be built because the cairn celebrating the hundredth anniversary is now in an area that is no longer accessible to the community.
Many locals do not realise that Bethania was initially settled by the Germans. Up until the 1920s, approximately 22 per cent of the population was from German heritage. Many of these people were the descendants of the original 98 people that arrived in Bethania in 1864.
My thanks in particular go to local historian Robin Kleinschmidt for the tremendous job that he has done together with his committee in putting the milestone and the celebrations together, which included a tour of the key landmarks in the local area. I congratulate him for his work and thank him for the wonderful heritage that he has left this community in that later this year we also celebrate the 150th anniversary of the settlement of Beenleigh. So it is going to be a wonderful year of celebration for our entire community.
On Sunday, 9 March, the Para Hills Tennis Club celebrated its 50th birthday with an open day at the club's facilities on Liberman Road, Para Hills. The day included children's amusements, a birthday cake, club memorabilia dating back to 1963, friendly tennis games and the reuniting of past and present club members. Amongst those present was Cath Burden who with her late husband Stan, who was the club's first president, were founding club members.
The Para Hills Tennis Club has a clubroom and six well-maintained floodlit tennis courts. Over the years it has served as both a local community recreational facility and a successful competitive tennis club with a string of pennants and shields to its name. The club was completely relocated in 1974 when it moved from its original location adjacent to the Para Hills Primary School to its present location and has since then undergone continuous facility upgrades.
As with all community groups, the club's existence and the wonderful service it has provided to the local community over the past 50 years are only possible because of the tireless work of the committee members, past and present. I particularly acknowledge and commend current club president Marija Lentic, secretary Cynthia Henderson, and the committee members for organising and hosting the Para Hills Tennis Club's 50th birthday celebrations. It was an important milestone in the club's history and worthy of the terrific effort that went into organising the day.
I rise to speak on the Walk to End Women's Cancers which was held over the weekend on the 16 and 17 March and to acknowledge all the women and men who took part in that walk to raise funds for research to find solutions to cancers that take away the lives of our women. I want to acknowledge four women in particular who participated in the walk and wanted to help make a difference in reducing the prevalence rates of cancer in women.
Alecia Benzie, Kelli Carnachan, Ellen Wisdom and Cassandra Lake are all busy people who work for the WA Symphony Orchestra, but they have taken time out to participate in the walk and to raise the necessary funds to make a difference to the quality of the life of women. Between them they raised $9,000 before the event and they were hoping to increase that over the weekend.
It was a warm weekend, but the gusto with which the people I saw participated and the way they supported each other and the people in wheelchairs who were affected by cancer was commendable. They had committed their time over the two days away from family and friends in order to take up the cudgels to ensure that women in the future have an opportunity to live longer lives and not be struck down at an early age with the different cancers that affect women. To all of them who participated, I acknowledge them and congratulate them on their contribution.
In Easter of 1988 the then next section of the F3 freeway opened to a place called Freemans Waterhole in my electorate. The result was the spilling of both Pacific Highway and National Highway traffic through and on the roads of the Cessnock Local Government Area. There began my fight for what is now known as the Hunter Expressway. I am delighted to be able to say that this Saturday the $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway will be open to traffic, making an enormous difference in the Hunter Valley: an enormous difference to travel times and an enormous difference to road safety but also, importantly, bringing people from the Upper Hunter to Newcastle and the Sydney market up to half an hour more quickly than has usually been the case and, just as importantly, providing a bypass for towns like Maitland and Cessnock and many communities in between.
I was a young councillor back in 1988. The big news finally came under the Rudd government, when Prime Minister Rudd and transport minister Albanese announced the $1.7 billion required for the project. I thank everyone who supported that campaign along the way. This is the biggest land transport project ever undertaken in the Hunter. It is going to make an enormous difference to so many people. I welcome it and look forward to the residents of the Hunter enjoying it into the future.
Earlier this month Oceania Oncology announced it would be opening a second radiotherapy centre in my electorate of Hinkler. From December this year, cancer patients will be able to receive treatment locally in Hervey Bay. The centre will be the first of its kind in Hervey Bay and is expected to treat about 500 patients a year. Oceania Oncology's presence will significantly reduce the inconvenience and cost for local patients, who previously had to travel hundreds of kilometres to Nambour or Brisbane to receive this treatment. Radiotherapy treatments can take between two and seven weeks, so having these services available locally will ease some of the burden on patients and their loved ones during a challenging time.
About 1,400 people are diagnosed with cancer in the Fraser Coast region every year. The centre will be integrated with Oceania's existing centre in Bundaberg, which health minister Peter Dutton and I officially opened in late January. The $11.3 million oncology centre in Bundaberg currently treats about 25 patients a day. It has six chemotherapy chairs, two radiotherapy treatment bunkers, CT scanning, ultrasound and digital X-ray services.
During the construction of the new facility in Hervey Bay, at the southern end of my electorate, Oceania will provide complimentary transport to the Bundaberg centre from Hervey Bay and Maryborough. Both centres use state-of-the-art technology to ensure patients receive world-class treatment, and are located in close proximity to other health services and facilities.
I would like to offer Oceania Oncology my sincerest thanks for their commitment to the people of Hinkler, and for their patience while awaiting the necessary approvals. Their dedication and persistence is admirable.
It is a pleasure to rise today to briefly mention that a couple of weeks ago we once again celebrated Mardi Gras in Sydney. It was, as usual, a terrific night, with many hundreds of people marching and on floats. There was certainly a very strong presence from the Labor Party on the evening—a float organised by Rainbow Labor. Many thousands of people turned out to watch and to celebrate the Mardi Gras parade with those people who marched. There was a great number of friends and family members of gay and lesbian Sydneysiders. They were making the point that, while an enormous amount of change has occurred in recent decades—firstly, of course, to community attitudes but also to our laws here in Australia, with more than 80 pieces of legislation being changed to ensure that there is no longer discrimination against gay men and lesbians in our laws—and yet there continues to be one area of legislative change that has not yet proceeded. That is on the issue of the same sex marriage or marriage equality. So Mardi Gras was a great night because it was an opportunity to celebrate the huge number of changes that have occurred already, but it was also a night on which we remembered that there are still changes to come.
As an admirer of quality journalism, I rise to congratulate The Examiner for this magnificent front page, from Sunday.
The member for Bass knows that props are disorderly.
The journalists have helpfully distilled the reactions of key parties that contested the election. In essence, the Liberals have knuckled down to work immediately. Labor is blaming the Greens and pondering their leadership. The Greens are blaming Labor and pondering their leadership. And the Palmer United Party are blaming the media and seemed to be settled on their leadership.
In my seat of Bass, Liberal candidates won over 57 per cent of the primary vote and are on track to win at least three of five seats. The Tasmanian Greens are at risk of losing at least two of their five seats and possibly a third. This reflects an absolute repudiation of Greens policies and their disproportionate influence on Tasmania's future. Yet, standing astride the wreckage of his party, the Greens' leader is out today talking up his leadership prospects. My advice to him is: focus less on the trappings of leader and more on why the people rejected your policies.
We now have a majority Hodgman government in Tasmania that has a clear mandate: restore Tasmania's economic fortunes. That includes a welcome outbreak of common sense in relation to forestry policy. The coalition will work constructively with the Hodgman government to restore a brighter future for our state to ensure that the next four years start to redress the damage caused by 16 years of hard Labor.
I rise to congratulate the students, teachers and parents of Yugumbir State School in Regents Park in my electorate. They held an assembly last week which was for their We Read Every Night, or WREN, program. There were 1,200 kids there and a couple of hundred parents talking about how important it is to get reading as early as possible. It was a tremendous event and very well attended. There was lots of commitment from the parents and lots of commitment from the students. They brought along their favourite books. They did some public readings. It was really an excellent demonstration of the sort of spirit that exists in the schools in my electorate.
My electorate of Capricornia is the powerhouse of beef and coal production. These are important industries. But Capricornia is diverse and offers much in the way of innovation. Today, I am pleased to inform you of one such example.
Capricornia pineapple farmer Barry Brookes and his wife, Elaine Barben, are on the verge of developing international markets for a medicinal product extracted from pineapples. Together with their partnership team—including researchers from CQ University—they are using an enzyme called bromelain which is extracted from the pine tops and juice. Bromelain is known for its anti-inflammatory properties and for treating skin ailments. Research suggests it shows benefits for burns and scars, as a blood thinner, and as an ingredient in some forms of cancer treatment.
On their Yeppoon farm, the Brookes family team has developed a bromelain cream. They hope to develop markets to export it. I have provided them with information on government services, like our small business helpline, which helps businesses to develop their concepts. New ventures like this have the potential to bolster employment, export potential and cash flow into the Capricornia region. I commend such innovation and wish this team every success with their venture.
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
All members of this House, in common with people all around the world, are pondering the fate of flight MH370, the Malaysia Airlines aircraft which has vanished. I spoke shortly before question time to Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia. He asked that Australia take responsibility for the search in the southern vector, which the Malaysian authorities now think was one possible flight path for this ill-fated aircraft. I agreed that we would do so. I offered the Malaysian Prime Minister additional maritime surveillance resources, which he gratefully accepted. Our Chief of the Defence Force has, as I understand it, just been in contact with the Malaysian chief to discuss how these additional resource would be best deployed.
I wish to assure the House and, through this House, the Australian people that Australia will do its duty in this matter. We will do our duty to ensure that our search and rescue responsibilities are maintained and upheld, and we will do our duty to the families of the 230 people on that aircraft, who are still absolutely devastated by their absence and who are still profoundly saddened by this as yet unfathomed mystery.
I seek to associate the opposition with the remarks of the government. It is a terrible tragedy. To all of the families and friends of passengers on the missing flight go our thoughts and prayers. To the families in particular of Queensland couples Rodney and Mary Burrows and Bob and Cathy Lawton, of Yuan Li and Naijun Gu, and of Paul Weeks go our deepest sympathies.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister release the Commission of Audit report before the Western Australian Senate election?
I thank the member for her question. I can assure the member for Perth that the Commission of Audit report will be released. It will be released when the government has properly considered it, and the government is in the course of properly considering it as we speak. I point out to the member for Perth that we have received but the interim report of the Commission of Audit. We expect to receive further reports from the Commission of Audit in the weeks ahead. But the job of government is not to bombard people with paper. It is to commission appropriate reports, appropriate investigations and appropriate studies, to consider them carefully and to release them at the appropriate time.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government building the roads of the 21st century to the benefit of businesses and families in my electorate of Robertson? How do these measures strengthen our national economy?
I do thank the member for Robertson for her question and I do appreciate her interest in the fact that the Premier of New South Wales, I and the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development came together yesterday to announce that the missing link between the M2 at Pennant Hills and the expressway at Hornsby was finally going to be built. Construction will begin within 12 months at least, possibly by the end of this year, and within five years this long-overdue part of our national road system will be completed.
This is good news for the member for Robertson. It is good news for the member for Dobell. It is good news for the member for Bradfield because his electorate will no longer be consumed by traffic. It is even good news for the member for Paterson because people will be able to drive from Newcastle to Melbourne without going through a single traffic light. And, yes, the long-suffering member for Berowra will also appreciate this good news, as will his constituents.
This is a three-lanes-each-way road tunnel which will finally join up this important part of our national road system. It is a $3 billion project. There will be $405 million contributed by the Commonwealth, with the same amount from the state government. I want to say to the member for Grayndler that, yes, the money was committed under the former government. They talked about it; we are delivering it. They talked about it; we are building it. That is exactly what is happening.
This new tunnel will cut out 21 sets of traffic lights. It will save the average motorist 15 minutes in travel, and it will take 5,000 trucks a day off Pennant Hills Road. It is good for families because less time spent in traffic jams means more time at home; it is good for business because less time spent in traffic jams means more time at work; it is good for the environment because less time spent in traffic jams means less pollution; and it is good for communities because no longer will these communities of northern Sydney be divided by the Pennant Hills Road traffic canyon. Traffic in a tunnel is not traffic which is choking local roads and local communities. But, above all else, it is good for our economy. We will unclog our economic arteries. That is what the roads of the 21st century are—they are clear arteries for a strong national economy. That is what we are doing—we are building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer to his re-announcement yesterday of the arrangement between federal Labor, of $405 million, and the state conservative government, of $405 million, for the F3 to M2 link. In yesterday's re-announcement, which followed the signing of the intergovernmental agreement on 21 June last year—
The honourable member will put it down!
did you add a single dollar or a single metre of road as a result of your re-announcement yesterday?
I have to say, as the Prime Minister rises to answer the question, that there was a lot of argument in that question. However, we will allow it to stand, but that prop will be removed and not be seen again.
When it comes to promising or delivering, I want to be a deliverer. When it comes to committing or building, I want to be a builder. That is what this government is; it is a government that will get things done. There was all this talk from members opposite. The building starts now and the building starts under this government.
You will not be surprised, Madam Speaker, that I am seeking leave to table the 21 June intergovernmental agreement signing photograph.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of repealing the mining tax? What will this mean to the constituents of Swan?
I thank the honourable member for the question. It is important to his constituents in Swan because 4,100 of his constituents work directly in the mining industry. Right across Western Australia, 68,000 work directly in the mining industry. It will be good for Western Australia, and what is good for Western Australia is good for Australia. We want to get rid of the mining tax. We want to get rid of the carbon tax. As the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, AMEC, said:
The repeal—
of the mining tax—
will go a long way to restoring confidence and much-needed investment back into the mining industry.
The Minerals Council of Australia said the repeal of the mining tax will:
… restore industry confidence, remove a further impost that destroys value in long-term, risky iron ore projects.
One of the best things about repealing the mining tax and its spending is that it saves the budget $13 billion.
Labor left us with $123 billion of deficits. They left us with debt approaching $667 billion. Abolishing the mining tax and its expenditure will improve the budget bottom line. As we know, we should laud the member for Lilley as the great genius who came up with a tax that raises no money! It is a new benchmark in tax incompetence. Not even the Greeks could come up with a tax that raises no money in the face of what they have had to come across. But do not believe me on that. Just over an hour ago Rio Tinto reported to the Australian Stock Exchange that in 2013 there were no mining tax payments included in the $3.157 billion of corporate income taxes paid to the Australian federal government. What a great tax! Rio Tinto paid over US$3 billion in taxes to the Australian government and not one dollar was the mining tax.
What would be the response of the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition said, 'We have no problem with the mining tax in principle.' He is so opposed to the mining tax he is going to keep it, and now he says that it is a great principle to have a tax that raises no money. What a genius! The Leader of the Opposition has no policy platform, because he has no principles. There is no underlying guidance mechanism that can send him in a direction that improves the budget bottom line. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: get out of the way—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer completed his answer?
Yes.
The Treasurer has completed his answer.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are two things. First of all, happy St Patrick's Day. Secondly, you referred before to the fact that the attendants are responsible for turning the microphones off. The reality is that the microphones will not cut out until you give a member the call, and repeatedly, if we stand here with a point of order, we are not given the call until a minister has finished.
They are points you can raise later.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister hiding his 900-page plan of nasty cuts to Western Australians? Don't Western Australians deserve to know what the government has got in store for them before the by-election on 5 April?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: that question does not fit within the standing orders. It is an assertion masquerading as a question. It is argument. It is hypothetical. It could not possibly be in order.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the fact that the Prime Minister is hiding the document was confirmed by the Prime Minister in this question time.
That is not a point of order; that is argument. The Prime Minister has the call.
We are carefully considering the Commission of Audit report—as, surely, all members of this parliament would expect us to. Of course it will be published once the government has carefully considered its recommendations. This is no great breach of precedent. We have had the interim report for less than a month. As I recall, the former government sat on the Gonski report for at least two months before it was released. My recollection is that the Henry tax review was considered by the former government for some four months before it was released. We will do justice to the Commission of Audit by carefully considering the report. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that we are hiding something from the voters of Western Australia. The one thing that the Leader of the Opposition is hiding is his true attitude towards the mining tax. The Leader of the Opposition went to Perth last week and was asked about the mining tax—and why shouldn't he be asked about the mining tax; let's face it, it is an anti Western Australian tax—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 104, this cannot possibly be directly relevant.
It was a very broadly worded question. The Prime Minister has the call.
In what was an absolutely brilliant interrogation by David Speers of Sky News the Leader of the Opposition was reduced to bubbling incoherence, saying that he really does not support the mining tax in Perth. But we know he supports the mining tax here in Canberra. This is a Leader of the Opposition who supports one thing in Perth and a different thing in Canberra. A Leader of the Opposition who decides what he supports depending on what city he is in is not fit to exercise leadership in this country.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I know that the minister has a real interest in Papua New Guinea, particularly the women of that country. She would know that at least 85 per cent of the food grown in PNG is grown by women and also that Australia funds important agricultural research in Papua New Guinea. Could the minister please tell the House what the plans are to take advantage of this research and fund agricultural training and development, particularly for the women of PNG?
I thank the member for Indi for her question and I know, through my work in PNG, of the work that she has done through the organisation PNG Women in Agriculture over the last seven years. The member for Indi is correct: Australia does have an outstanding research arm in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade called the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. ACIAR is a jewel in the crown of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It focuses on important agricultural research for developing countries. This year ACIAR will invest more than $94 million—an increase on last year—in agricultural research and, specifically, $5 million for PNG, which is also an increase on last year's budget. Specifically, ACIAR's research in PNG focuses on the hurdles that farmers face. So the research goes to high-value crops, higher yield seeds, better feed for livestock and similar. But the research has also shown that, if women are given access to agricultural research and training, farm productivity increases by about 20 or 30 per cent. We have got a program called Liklik Bisniss Thinking, which means 'small business thinking'. In the last six months 330 PNG women have been trained in small business techniques, and 250 heads of family have also been trained under this program.
The member might be aware that, on 3 March, I announced 11 agricultural research scholarships, the John Dillon scholarships, which are funded through ACIAR. One of the recipients was Papua New Guinean woman Matilda Hamago. She is the first PNG woman to be awarded such a scholarship in agriculture research, and I certainly hope she is the first of many.
The member might also be aware that the aid budget that we inherited from the Labor government was in an utter shambles. Over the last 15 months of that Labor government, they announced and then withdrew $5.7 billion from the forward estimates of the aid budget. We have now stabilised the aid budget. It will be $5 billion a year. It will be a responsible, affordable, sustainable budget focusing on our region, focusing on Papua New Guinea. A pillar of it will be the economic empowerment of women in our region. So we will continue to provide support, particularly for women in the region, in the area of agriculture.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, I refer to figures released by the Clean Energy Regulator that show the carbon tax has penalised Woodside Energy with at least $172 million in higher costs in the last financial year. Minister, what impact has the carbon tax had on Western Australia and why should this tax be repealed forthwith?
I thank the member for Pearce for his question. It is always a pleasure to receive a question from him. I am sorry, but I have bad news. After 105 days the carbon tax, which is doing its damage to the Western Australian economy, remains stuck in the Senate.
Members may remember that a former member of this House, Pat Farmer, ran from the North Pole to the South Pole. After 105 days, he had crossed the Arctic, travelled down the Canadian coast and passed through New York, and, on his own feet, he was halfway down the US coast. After 105 days, the Leader of the Opposition cannot even be bothered to get up and walk from here to the Senate to get his members in the Senate to vote for the repeal of the carbon tax. We have had 105 days and nothing—no action, inaction, a go slow and a strike.
Why does this matter? Because the member is correct: it is a $172 million hit on Woodside Energy, but more than that, it is a $627 million hit on Western Australian firms alone. Within the oil and gas sector—a sector which is facing attacks not faced by its competitors in the Middle East, Vietnam and Indonesia—that tax alone costs $265 million. It is not just costing Woodside. It is costing the Burrup project $55 million, Apache Energy $17 million, DBNGP $5 million and Chevron, Mitsui and APCO all $3 million. Wesfarmers had a $2 million hit and BGC, Gold Fields, EDL, Vermilion and ENI all paid a million dollars in carbon tax in the last financial year alone. What does that mean? It means that in a globally competitive environment, where capital decisions are made on the return on investment, Western Australian firms are being hit with a tax not paid by their competitors.
That is precisely why in the last two weeks we have heard the CEO of BHP, Andrew Mackenzie, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the United States making the point that the carbon tax is, 'a tax that was designed in a way that was actually very injurious of Australia's competitiveness'. Only today, we heard the president of GE make it absolutely clear in terms of Australia that the government has the mandate to repeal the carbon tax. If you want to do something for Western Australia, go and tell your senators to pass the repeal and get out of the way. (Time expired)
Before I call the honourable member for Batman, I would like to advise the House that we have with us in the gallery today the Hon. Tom McVeigh, a former minister and former member for Groom. We make you most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Has the minister received a copy of the full Commission of Audit report?
I will not detain the House for terribly long—no.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer outline the challenges the budget faces over the next decade? Further, can he advise the House of the state of the budget that this government inherited just over six months ago?
I thank the member for Casey for his question and note that he was there the last time we came into government and inherited a budgetary mess from Labor. It is like groundhog day, in a sense, except the problem seems to be worse. The fact is that Labor have left us, according to the IMF survey of 17 nations, with the highest projected spending of the top 17 nations in the world over the next few years. They have left us with the third highest projected growth in net debt of those 17 nations over the next few years. That is a great Labor legacy, apart from the $123 billion of deficit and $667 billion of debt. The fact is that Labor has left the Australian government without any chance of a surplus at all—ever—over the next 10 years. That is their great legacy.
In leaving that massive log jam of increased expenditure, without the revenue available to deal with it, they have left us to make the hard decisions in relation to the budget and we will because we must. The fact is that Labor has deluded itself for a number of years and its legacy of economic incompetence, its legacy of largesse and its legacy of deficit and debt comes at a cost to the economy. The only way you can fix the economy is to start by fixing the budget. That is the only way you can do it. There are no choices here. Labor can cry all it wants about the Commission of Audit. They should know the answers because they created the problems.
They created the problems when it comes to blow-outs in expenditure in health, in education and in social services more generally. They pushed beyond the forward estimates massive increases in defence expenditure, in foreign aid and in a range of other things, but they do not care because Labor does not care about the future. Their disregard for the future is best illustrated by the fact that they have left future generations of Australians with $667 billion of debt. It is contemporary, because in the Senate right now Labor is opposing $20 billion of savings that will start to fix the budget. They announced $5 billion of those savings themselves. So they are not only not true to their principles but they are living hypocrites when it comes to the budget.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The word 'hypocrite' is unparliamentary, and the Treasurer will withdraw.
I withdraw.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the previous answer given by the Minister for Justice. Don't Western Australians, including his own Western Australian ministers, deserve to know what the government is keeping secret in the Commission of Audit report?
I call the honourable the Prime Minister and I would remind that House that this is a very wide-ranging question.
How low has a once-great party sunk when some pathetic scare about the Commission of Audit—a report to government, not a report by government—is the best they can do? This is the best they can do: a pathetic, embarrassing scare campaign which shows that members opposite have no answers for our future. The Labor Party might have a past to be proud of, a past that boasted great prime ministers, like Bob Hawke, and great reformers, like Paul Keating. They must be embarrassed at what has happened to a once great political party. If members opposite are serious about doing the right thing by Western Australians, they should let us get the carbon tax repeal legislation through the Senate. They should let us get the mining tax repeal legislation through the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition over in Perth tries to give people the impression that he does not support the mining tax; here in Canberra, he will not abolish it. I cannot and will not say that he is a hypocrite. I know that he has what is described as situational principles—that is what he has got! Someone whose political principles are situational is not fit to be a national leader.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on how many days have passed since the last successful people-smuggling venture arrived in Australia? What strategies have been effective in stopping the boats?
The previous member for Lindsay had a habit of visiting Darwin and going out to look for boats off our northern coast. If I were to invite the new member for Lindsay to join me to go to Darwin she would not find many boats up there because, I can inform the House, it has been 88 days since the last successful people-smuggling venture to Australia. As the Prime Minister was saying before, this is a government that is known for what it achieves. Eighty-eight days without a successful people-smuggling venture is the product of this government's policies, and the resolve of this government is what is achieving those results day in, day out.
As I move around the country, I find great support for the government's achievements in this area. It would seem there are still those opposite who doubt the effectiveness or wisdom of the policies that the government is putting in place on our borders. The chief of those who are in doubt about these policies is none other than the Leader of the Opposition himself. On four occasions last week he was asked by David Speers whether he supported this government's policy to turn back the boats—a policy they opposed at the last election, a policy they said could never be done, was impossible to do and would never work. He could not give a response. When he was asked it had been 80 days; now it is 88 days, and I am interested to know whether he supports it now. Despite this evidence, he still finds himself unable to support the policies that are working on our borders.
The Leader of the Opposition's standards are not high, because he was able to agree with former Prime Minister Gillard when he did not even know what she had said. He does not have terribly high standards when it comes to these things, but I would hope that having seen the success on our borders he would be able to bring himself to admit that those on the other side got it wrong on our borders. They got the policy wrong. Now when they see a policy working they should embrace it.
The people of Western Australia have to go to a Senate election and they know what this coalition stands for when it comes to our borders. There is no doubt about what those on this side stand for when it comes to border protection, but on that side it is a complete blank page. You would not know what this Leader of the Opposition thought about anything. He needs a GPS to find his principles when it comes to anything. On border protection it is no different, because even when it is presented to him, despite the fact that he declines to attend briefings, he still does not believe.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government defying a Senate order today to release the Commission of Audit to the Senate. Prime Minister, what is in this secret report that you will go to any lengths not to tell Western Australians about?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am deeply surprised that the Leader of the Opposition somehow believes that something unconscionable has occurred because a Senate order has been made and, as yet, has not been complied with. I am surprised because the Leader of the Opposition was a minister in a government, in the 43rd Parliament, that failed to comply with over 40 Senate orders for the production of documents, including the following key Treasury related orders.
Madam Speaker, standing order 104(a) says that an answer must be directly relevant.
There is no point of order.
If this is a fault on our part, the fault on their part is 40 times greater. This Leader of the Opposition does not just have situational principles, he has temporal principles, because his principles differ in accordance with the time of day, and that is a real problem for someone who wants to be a national leader.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How is the government supporting efforts to locate the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. In addition to the Prime Minister's statement at the commencement of question time today concerning his phone call with his Malaysian counterpart, Prime Minister Najib, I can inform the House that, immediately after the Australian government became aware that Malaysia Airlines flight 370 was missing, the Prime Minister contacted Prime Minister Najib. Likewise, I contacted Foreign Minister Anifah to offer our sympathies and support, and whatever assistance was required. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending my thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of those aboard the flight. It is clearly a deeply distressing and agonising time for them all.
I can confirm that, from the outset, Australian officials have been in close contact with Malaysian authorities on efforts to locate the missing flight. On Sunday 9 March Australia deployed two RAAF P-3C Orions—our maritime surveillance aircraft—to support the search coordinated by Malaysian authorities. From 15 March this search has relocated from the South China Sea to two flight corridors north from Malaysia to Kazakhstan and south from Indonesia into the southern Indian Ocean. Our Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, last night advised that Malaysian authorities had re-tasked our aircraft in response to the changed area of search operations. Yesterday one Orion commenced searching the Indian Ocean to the north and west of the Cocos Islands, and it is continuing its search operations in the area today. Our second aircraft will continue to search west of Malaysia. I can inform the House that, as of yesterday, the two Orions had flown more than 50 hours in search missions as part of the international effort.
In addition, as part of the search missions—there are currently 14 countries assisting—all our Defence intelligence relating to flight 370 has been, and will continue to be, passed on to Malaysian authorities, who are ultimately responsible for providing updated public information on efforts to locate this flight. There is an enormous international search effort underway. As the Prime Minister has indicated, Australia stands ready to provide whatever additional support might be required. In the meantime, I can confirm that our consular officials will continue to keep in regular contact with the families of the Australians on board.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why on earth is the Prime Minister cutting support to the children of veterans who have been killed or injured, including children who have been orphaned? Will the Prime Minister now reverse his callous decision?
The support in question comes through a much larger benefit, which is made available to many tens of thousands of people. We were up-front with people before the election that this particular benefit would be removed, because it was a benefit that was supposed to be paid for by the mining tax, and the mining tax is not raising any money. I accept that this will be unpopular—no-one wants to lose a benefit. But we cannot go on spending money that we do not have. We cannot go on being generous with borrowed money, and this is the problem. This leader of the opposition is trying to embarrass the government because the government is keeping its commitments. That is the whole point—we are prepared to commit to tough policies up-front, before an election, when the people have a choice. We were elected on the basis of these policies, and, unlike this leader of the opposition, if we commit to something before an election, we keep that commitment after an election. It is as simple as that, and I think that the Australian people are big enough to understand that yes, some tough decisions do need to be made. We promised tough decisions, and they will be as tough and as fair as they need to be.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. How is the government assisting retired Australian Defence personnel and their families by providing for fair indexation of military superannuation pensions? How many military superannuants in my electorate of Eden-Monaro will benefit under the government's policy?
I thank the Member for Eden-Monaro for his question and acknowledge his longstanding and very strong support for the veteran community, not just in his electorate but around the country. Consistent with our election commitments, the government will provide fair indexation for DFRB and DFRDB military superannuant pensions to ensure a fair dinkum deal for our ADF personnel and their families. On 1 January this year we put in place our fair dinkum deal for free ADF health care for our families.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari will desist.
And if the Senate would move, we could actually save $80 million—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
which is the cost to the Defence force on the carbon tax.
The member for Lingiari will remove himself from the House under 94(a).
The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, and I have been working with the department to ensure this policy will be in place by 1 July this year. As a result of this policy, 57,000 DFRDB and DFRB superannuants will be better off. And I say to the Member for Eden-Monaro: that includes 813 retired Defence Force members and 132 dependants in your electorate. This initiative has been a long time coming. This week, this government will proudly put this legislation into the House to fulfil another election commitment we made to the Australian people and to Australia's veterans. We are proud to put the welfare of our veterans first and foremost.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
So let us compare this to those opposite—
The Member for Jagajaga will desist, or leave—one or the other.
Those opposite did not even go to the election with a veterans' policy. In fact, your veterans' policy was a blank sheet of paper. In 2007 those opposite promised to index pensions, and then six long years later—six years of nothing, six years of self-serving reviews—they delivered nothing. And whilst the Labor opposition capitulated—
Madam Speaker, a point of order under standing order 104(a): not only is he failing to be directorially relevant, but the comments he just made about 2007 are factually untrue.
That is not a point of order. There are other forms of the House where one can debate statements that are made. The minister has the call.
That is the great thing about the truth: it hurts, doesn't it. Six years of indecision, and six years of nothing. Well, veterans do not have to wait six years, six months, or even six days, because we will get this done in this House in the coming days. It was interesting to see in the last few days of last year's election the former government capitulate and put in a half-hearted attempt. Not an attempt to help veterans out, but an attempt to try to help Mike Kelly out in his seat of Eden-Monaro. Well, that didn't go so well, because the veterans saw through a half-hearted, 11th hour response. We will index military pensions. We will stand up for those who are serving. We will do it properly and we will do it now.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister. Only 1,200 children of war veterans receive the assistance that the government wants to cut. Why could the Prime Minister find $5.5 billion for his signature paid parental leave policy, but not a mere $250,000 for the children of war veterans?
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left, including from the member for McEwen.
I know exactly what members opposite are trying to do. They are trying to present this government as callous and hard-hearted. The truth that members opposite seem to have forgotten is that this was an election commitment that we made. We said that in order to help repair the budget—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Jagajaga then left the chamber.
In order to deal with the $123 billion of prospective deficits, in order to deal with the $667 billion of cumulative debt that Labor was running up, we would not continue the Income Support Bonus. The Income Support Bonus is paid to tens of thousands of people. Amongst those people are some of those mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can also inform the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we are not going to continue the Schoolkids Bonus, and 1,780 Department of Veterans' Affairs clients receive the Schoolkids Bonus. Presumably we should continue the Schoolkids Bonus on that same logic, because 1,780 DVA clients receive it.
Opposition members interjecting—
There is too much noise on my left, particularly coming from the member for Parramatta.
I just want to make this fundamental point: no government can continue to be generous with other people's money. No government can continue to be generous with borrowed money. We said that the Income Support Bonus would go.
Opposition members interjecting—
The members for McMahon and Watson will desist.
We said that the Schoolkids Bonus would go. We were honest and upfront about that before the election, and we will do it after the election, because our fundamental task is to ensure that this government lives within its means. Our fundamental task is to repair the budget because, as the Treasurer said in question time today, if you want to fix the economy then you have got to fix the budget first. We will fix the budget, and we will fix the economy.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, how is the government reducing red tape for Australian businesses, and how will this help the many small business owners in my electorate of Ryan?
Thank you to the member for Ryan for a great question, and the great work she does for 14,500 small businesses operating in her electorate. We know, as she knows—as we hope most of this House would know—that small business is groaning under the regulatory burden introduced by the previous government. As many as 21,000 new or amended regulations were introduced by Labor in just six years, and we know small business does the heavy lifting in creating jobs and economic opportunities. They do not expect to be the heavy lifters of regulation, red-tape, and compliance burdens in this economy.
We went to the election with a commitment to remove a billion dollars worth of red tape out of the economy, a billion dollars—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Oxley will desist—
that will free up the burden that gums up the economy with excessive and unnecessary red-tape. We have tried, we have good form on this.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Oxley will desist or leave.
We have fantastic form on this. We have tried for years to lift the pay-clerk burden off employers under the government's paid parental leave scheme. We have tried, but it has been voted down twice by Labor. They said it was so important to impose this burden, for which there was no policy justification at all—just cost and compliance burdens for those left to administer it. Then in the dying days of the election campaign, what did Labor realise? That the pay-clerk burden is completely unjustified. They came out looking for a small business policy, could come up with no ideas of their own, and despite having voted against this measure twice when they were in government, they suddenly promised they would follow the coalition. We tested that resolve. We put forward a measure to end the pay-clerk burden, to save the business community $44 million, and guess what happened? Labor went back to type. They forgot about their election promises, they forgot about the red-tape compliance burden, they voted against $44 million of compliance cost savings that would have resulted from relieving the business community of the pay-clerk burden.
We will persevere Member for Ryan. Please reassure your electorate that we will persevere. We know that small business does the heavy lifting in creating jobs, economic opportunity and prosperity in this country. We know that under Labor our position on government regulation, when compared by the World Economic Forum, saw Australia fall from 68th to 128th—hardly the kind of performance record you want. We want to turn that around. The government is committed to doing it—lifting this red-tape burden of the PPL pay-clerk is part of that.
For those opposite, if you want to see how we are going, check out a great website. It is www.cuttingredtape.gov.au, for those businesses that are dealing with needless, pointless, expensive red tape. Contribute to this work. We are committed to lifting a billion dollars of red tape and putting the enterprise back into our economy. We will persevere in getting this PPL pay-clerk lifted off as a red-tape burden on our economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's two most recent answers, and to a statement I have received from David Spillman, President of the Kwinana RSL in Western Australia, who has said, 'when Western Australians fight for Australia, get injured for Australia, and die for Australia, we do not think it is too much to ask for their kids to get a helping hand'. We are shocked the Prime Minister would cut something that helps the kids of RSL members. When will the Prime Minister reverse his callous, hard-hearted decision?
The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that somehow we are singling out the children of veterans for bad treatment. We are not. We are removing the income support bonus as we committed to doing before the election, because it is a payment funded by the mining tax, and the mining tax is not raising any money. There are tens of thousands of people who will lose the income support bonus, and I do not suppose that any of them will be very happy to lose it. But I do imagine that most of them will understand that the government made this commitment up-front, before the election, and we will deliver upon it after the election.
But this idea that the children of veterans are somehow being singled out for mistreatment by government is simply false. It is simply false. It is an outrageous smear and it is a comment on this Leader of the Opposition that he should suggest that we are somehow targeting veterans' children. Let me say that the children of veterans, depending upon their circumstances, will receive annual payments of up to $13,312 a year and there are additional payments for single orphans of up to $1,036 a year. They are the facts. Now, it is true that tens of thousands of people will no longer get the particular bonus in question.
But, as I said, it was a policy that we took to the election and we were absolutely up-front with people. People were under no illusions as to what was happening. This particular payment was going, and it will go.
Madam Speaker, I seek to table the statement from Dave Spillman, President of the Kwinana RSL.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the government's announcement recently of the appointment of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. How is the government getting on with the job of fulfilling its election commitments in school education?
I am delighted to get a question from the member for Deakin about the government keeping its commitments in school education. I have to say that recently I had the opportunity to announce the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group.
It completed one of the pillars that the government took to the election about how we are going to address student outcomes at our schools, putting students first. We had already announced a review of the national curriculum to have the most robust curriculum possible. We have already announced a $70 million fund because we want to expand independent public schools. We know that the more autonomy that a school has, the better the results for students and the higher the expectations for students, which means that we are putting students first. Then I announced the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, because all of the research, whether it is our own local research or whether it is the OECD PISA study, shows that in Australia, more than any other OECD country, the most important factor that affects a student's outcome is the quality of the teachers. That report found that eight out of 10 influences on a student's results will be the classroom to which they are allocated in a school—not their social background and not the curriculum but the classrooms to which they are allocated in a school. So we are focusing on the issues that matter in education: more autonomy for schools; a better curriculum for schools; higher teacher quality in schools.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will desist!
Support comes from the strangest places. Some members of the House might remember my old sparring partner, Julia Gillard. She was the Minister for Education when I was the shadow minister for education, and then she was the Prime Minister pretending to be the 'education prime minister', and I was the Manager of Opposition Business in the House and continued to be the shadow minister for education—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Kingston and the member for Perth will desist! And the member for Moreton!
I used to say the same things for years and years and years—that education was not just about money but about curriculum, teacher quality and autonomy.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
The former Prime Minister, the former Minister of Education, never said that. For six years, she always used to maintain that more money would solve every problem. And do you know what she said on 24 February, free from the shackles of government, free from the shackles of the prime ministership? At the Brookings Institute she said:
One of the things in developed countries like Australia is, actually, the amount of money going into education has been increasing but learning outcomes have not been increasing.
So support comes from the strangest of places. The former education minister, the former Prime Minister, is lining up with the new member for Perth and the government in insisting that money is not everything; it is all the other things that we are doing in education.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's confirmation that he will cut support to the orphans of war veterans. The cost of delivering this payment to 1,200 children is just $250,000, less than the cost of providing his paid parental leave scheme to just four people. Why does the Prime Minister think four women on higher salaries are more worthy than 1,200 children of war veterans?
The first part of that question has already been answered. The Prime Minister has the call, and it is an enormously wide-ranging question.
The suggestion from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this government is somehow against veterans and their children is simply false. Any idea that this government is against veterans is simply false.
An opposition member interjecting—
We have an interjection from one of the opposition frontbenchers that words are cheap. Let me just make this point to him. One of the big issues for veterans was the proper indexation of the DFRDB and the DFRB pensions. We made that commitment before the election and we are delivering on that commitment after the election. We promised before the election that the income support bonus would go—we made that up-front and clear before the election. We said that this particular bonus would go. It is true that some veterans and their families receive this bonus. They knew before the election that this bonus would go. Veterans, like everyone else, understand that governments have to keep their commitments. They also understand, like everyone else, that you cannot be generous with money that you just do not have. We should never forget that members opposite—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
And Moreton!
billed $13 billion worth of spending against a tax which has raised just $300 million this year. Members of the veterans community understand that if you want to defend our country, if you want to do the right thing by veterans, you have got to have a strong economy, you have got to have a strong budget, and that is what this government is determined to deliver.
My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Rockingham GP superclinic in Western Australia that was promised more than three years ago, is still not open and yet to see a single patient. How have the delays to this clinic affected the delivery of health services in Western Australia?
Thank you very much to the honourable member for his question. Governments have two choices: you can either spend money in front-line services in health or you can spend it in great big new bureaucracies in Canberra. The Labor Party of course created 12 great big new bureaucracies in Canberra and it meant they were taking money away from services in Western Australia. This government will not make the same mistake. We will make sure that we deliver on our promises—and when I speak of promises it is very interesting to have a look at some of the promises that Labor made in their GP superclinic program.
It was a $650 million program. It was borrowed money. They promised 64 of these so-called superclinics around the country: they were to pop up with taxpayers' assistance and they were to provide competition against existing medical practices. The difficulty was that even though these were promised in some cases on multiple occasions, some of them have not yet even started work. They have not seen a patient as yet.
WA is a classic example. If you are living in Western Australia and you are asking, 'What would the Labor Party do for me in terms of health services?' look at their track record. The problem was that the member for Sydney, the former health minister Tanya Plibersek, Minister Plibersek, promised six of these in Western Australia. Do you know how many have been delivered? Only one—just one. Sure, by Labor standards she is an overachiever. One in six, about a 16 per cent success rate, makes you a roaring success of the Rudd-Gillard years, Tanya Plibersek, but let me tell you it does not make much difference in the lives of those people in Western Australia.
In the last parliamentary sitting week we also discussed a very important promise that Labor had made in relation to a GP superclinic at Karratha in Western Australia. The former minister, the member for Sydney, hopped up to make a personal explanation at the end of question time and she said:
The Karratha GP superclinic has been offering early services since 2 May 2012.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will desist or leave, one or the other. Last warning!
As I pointed out last week, the Karratha superclinic, despite having been promised twice by Labor, has not yet started construction. It is very cheeky, but when you look at the words of the former minister she talks about 'early services'. They have been offering early services, have they? Do you know what that means? It means the superclinic has not been built, patients are not being seen, doctors are not providing those services. You have put money into an existing clinic and call that a superclinic. Somehow, that is justification for spending $650 million in this program. The people of Western Australia will not be fooled twice. The Rockingham GP superclinic was promised in 2010 and 2012. They will not fall for Labor's false promises again.
After 21 well-answered questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Before I move to the presentation of reports and papers, I will repeat the advice that I gave earlier today, and that is that I have ascertained that Her Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House at 4 pm today. The sitting will be suspended prior to 3.30 this afternoon. I should be glad if the mover and the seconder, together with other honourable members, would accompany me to present the address.
Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard.
(): I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 23 of 2013-14 entitled Performance audit: policing at Australian international airports: Australian Federal Police.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
As I was saying previously, governments cannot expect young people to gain well-paid jobs without providing good education, training and support. Governments cannot expect young people to easily find work with the current unemployment rate either. Unfortunately, this bill seems to operate on the premise that young Australians do not want to work rather than the reality that many face, that there is difficulty in obtaining employment.
Sadly, we have seen an increase of youth unemployment in this country after many years of a downward trend. The dangling carrot approach of this legislation is all well and good, but there must be jobs available for our young people in the first place or else this carrot merely becomes the stick—an incentive that cannot be obtained because it operates as a bandaid solution to what is a much deeper, much more complex issue.
The current youth unemployment rate of around 12 per cent, more than double the general unemployment rate figure of 6 per cent, is, of course, far too high. It is particularly high in my home state of Tasmania, where on the north-west coast it is a staggering 21 per cent and in the Launceston area it is just over 18 per cent. This means that a large number of total unemployed persons in Tasmania, and in other areas right across this country, are young people. This is totally unacceptable and the consequences of not acting to redress this are very high indeed. Governments need to intervene, and that is what Labor was doing when we were in government. We were investing in vocational training, we were investing in trade training centres in high schools and we were intervening with programs like Youth Connections. Labor also provided support to the economy during the global financial crisis to support jobs, saving an estimated 200,000 jobs during this period.
During the election, Labor announced changes to Job Services Australia because we know that the support that job seekers receive is vitally important to them gaining employment. This is precisely why we talked about reforming job services and why we did it in our years in government. We wanted the flexibility to match services to individual job seekers and prioritise resources for those with the greatest need. As a result, we achieved significantly better outcomes for the most disadvantaged job seekers, outcomes that improved by over 90 per cent.
Across employment services, Labor in office helped more than one 1.6 million people secure jobs. Our employment services system was recognised by the OECD as playing a central role in keeping unemployment down during the global financial crisis.
Prior to the election, Labor in government conducted a review of employment services. There was an issue paper released and more than 180 written submissions with more than 440 people from over 300 organisations took part in this review. Labor announced during the campaign that we would have seven key principles which would drive the next employment services contracts. These were training and employment services to be integrated through a place-based and demand-led model; jobs and training boards to be established in 42 regions across Australia to formally link employers, employment and training services, and health and community services—these boards would have ensured that services met local needs and they would have replaced the current employment service areas. We would have made improvements to the up-front assessment of job seekers' needs and employment barriers. We were going to introduce a jobs and training apprenticeship guarantee to give every job seeker the help they need to get back to work, making sure that no one slipped through the cracks. There was to be an increased focus on addressing long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, as well as closing the gap in Indigenous employment. Incentives to providers were to be altered to encourage long-term employment outcomes and to reward investment through improving capacity. The seventh principle was that an independent employment services regulator was to be introduced under Labor to manage job-seeker complaints and service quality, to oversee provider compliance and to be responsible for reducing red tape in the job services area.
Central to our new vision for employment services was this establishment of 42 jobs and training boards across the country. They were to be established under 'Jobs and Training Australia' and to be independent from government. Membership of these boards was to reflect the local economy and community and was to consist of employers, of unions, of health and community and social services, of VET coordinators, of regional development organisations and of government representatives.
The jobs and training boards were to build on the success of the local employment coordinators, with a board established for each natural labour market. These boards were not to run employment or training services but were for determining strategic direction of employment and training services at a local level, with each board having to create a jobs and training plan with stakeholders' involvement. We would then have been in a position to invest strategically in skills that employers will need in the future, to use our employment and training services not just to help people find jobs but also to drive business growth and the creation of new jobs.
Driving jobs growth should be the role of governments. That is why we announced these changes to Jobs Services Australia and to the four-year contracts due to expire on 30 June next year. That is why Labor wanted to provide the jobs and training apprenticeship guarantee, to provide every young Australian access to telephone and online careers advice, skills appraisals and assistance with resume writing. That is why we also announced that all Australians would have access of up to $90,000 assistance through VET fee help and access to courses up to certificate III through the National Training Entitlement.
We have not yet seen or heard what the new government plans are for Job Services Australia. We know that providers of services will need to know soon. We all know that if there is to be any tender process of any sort it will need to start this year. We also know that this system has been continuously reformed, as I said, over previous years, because we know how crucial the role of the JSA is in addressing unemployment.
Young people in work increases when young people are better trained and educated. It also increases when the labour market is strong. We want to see the government continue investing in training. It is investment into training, into education and into support for young people that will give them well-paid jobs. Research shows that people who complete year 12 are more likely to have a job, will earn more and will have more stable employment. Unemployment rates are 1.6 per cent higher among those who have failed to complete year 12 and, of course, they earn only 81 per cent of their secondary-education graduate counterparts. The proportion of full-time earners is 12 per cent higher for those who have completed year 12 than for those who have not and the proportion of part-time earners or non-earners is 26 per cent lower.
If we do not address these education and training issues behind youth unemployment then we are failing our children, and the blow-out across the economy in future years will be not just in terms of welfare and social supports but also, importantly, in terms of each individual's lost opportunity and potential. We are missing out on $1.5 billion a year when young people do fall through the cracks between school and further education or meaningful work. This is why the government must commit to jobs training and education first and foremost. We are pleased to see that the government is attempting to address youth unemployment by offering incentives, but it must not be at the expense of other measures that we know will get young people working.
Labor has been very concerned about jobs since the new government came to office. Prior to the election we had the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister promising he would create one million jobs in five years—200,000 jobs a year, that is. After six months in government the government should have created 100,000 jobs. We all know of course that the government is way off target and that the current figures do not show this. Indeed, the troubling high unemployment rate of six per cent does not include the thousands of recently announced job losses, so we know that, sadly, there is more pain to come. Since the new government we have heard announcements that others will lose their jobs: Qantas workers, Toyota and Holden workers, workers in the component industries, workers at Rio Tinto at Gove, workers at Alcoa and so many more. Of course, our thoughts are with them and their families as they deal with their devastating news. All of these job losses are yet to be factored into the employment data or unemployment data.
This government cannot continue to do nothing. It needs a detailed plan for jobs. The government should explain to the Australian people how its plan to create one million jobs is actually going to happen. Where is an industry and innovation plan? Where is the plan to be part of the Asian century? Indeed, where is any plan at all? The government must ensure that support is given to workers who are affected by recent job announcements and the economy, particularly in those regions where communities are more affected by these recent announcements.
We need to stop sending Australian jobs overseas. We deserve a government that will fight for jobs here in Australia. We want a government that will support workers and job seekers. That is what Labor did when we were in office. We responded with both assistance to maintain manufacturing jobs in Australia and additional support for those workers who were affected when any large manufacturing plant or company folded. Retraining and job services stream 3 additional support was always provided for people who lost their jobs.
Whilst we support this legislation and the principle of encouraging young people to find employment, Labor do not want to see these payments to job seekers be instead of wage subsidies, support for employers or indeed, as I have outlined, investment in training or further education, particularly for young people. The government needs to fight for jobs and for workers. It needs to do more. It needs to intervene where necessary and to support jobs, training and further education in this country.
Before I close I want to note Migration Council Australia's concern that this bill excludes long-term New Zealand citizens who hold protected special category visas from receiving the job commitment bonus. Migration Council Australia say that to their knowledge this group of people has not been excluded from other social security payments in the past and they wonder why it is included in this bill. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that if the Government was serious about addressing youth unemployment it would be providing more support for the more than 60,000 workers who have recently lost their jobs and be providing more support and training for young people; and
(2) calls on the Government to publicly review, by 30 June 2015, the impact of the extension of the non-payment period for recipients of the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job if the person is unable to work for the required six months."
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
It might suit the convenience of the House if at this time I suspend the sitting until 5.30 pm in order that I may present the address-in-reply to Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. I should be glad if the mover and the seconder of the motion, together with other honourable members, would accompany me to present the address.
Sitting suspended from 15:28 to 17:30
I inform the House that, accompanied by the honourable members, I waited today upon Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to her the address-in-reply to Her Excellency’s speech on the opening of the first session of the 44th Parliament, agreed to by the House earlier today.
Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:
Madam Speaker
Thank you for your Address in Reply.
It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty The Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression.
I wish to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. The bill gives effect to two coalition election commitments: the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. Both will commence on 1 July, 2014.
Australia has a long history of trying to help the unemployed—it goes back more than 100 years. Of course, we had a unique soldier settlement program after World War I. Recently we have acknowledged the Great Ocean Road as 100 years old and, with a great deal of additional coalition support, it is going to be rejuvenated and made again an outstanding world-class memorial to those great First World War soldiers. The point about the construction of that great Australian road was that it was also to employ the returned servicemen, many of them suffering mental health injuries. It was for many years that they were given employment on that construction. In the Second World War, we had Closer settlement and soldiers' settlement programs, again, to employ those coming back from war who needed Australian government support.
The coalition believes that every Australian who is capable of work should have a job. The best way to deal with poverty, depression and anxiety is for an Australian to have a job and, if necessary, to be assisted into that job. We acknowledge that some people live a long way from where there might be employment. We acknowledge that for some people their education is not sufficient, or they may have active discrimination against them because of their ethnicity or the way they present to an employer. We, the coalition, understand that and we are putting into place a series of measures to help those who are unemployed. Sadly, under Labor the queues of those waiting to receive welfare assistance because they were unemployed got longer.
The queue was particularly long for those who could not afford child care; it was particularly long for the youth who lived in rural and regional areas, for Aboriginal people and for those with a disability but who wished to work and who could work. Under Labor, we simply had to watch as those queues grew longer. Token efforts were made to support them but, unfortunately, those token efforts rarely did anything more than give some press releases for the minister in charge of that particular area. Our understanding from our long experience is that you need to be serious about job support, and that is why we know that these two particular initiatives will do a great deal.
The first is trying to assist people who get off the Newstart allowance—who have been receiving it for about 12 months and who take a job. We understand and do acknowledge that sometimes the pay in that first job is not much different to the welfare that they were receiving before. But we know that the difference between being on welfare and being in a job where you have your own income, where you can choose what you spend your cash on and where you can build into a bigger and better job as time goes by is a significant reward in itself. So we have produced a Job Commitment Bonus; it is a new payment. Under the former Labor government, there was no equivalent payment and there was never intended to be an equivalent payment.
This bonus rewards young people aged 18 to 30 years who get and keep a job and remain off welfare. After 12 months, they will receive $2,500. If they remain in that position and are off welfare for a further 12 months they may be eligible for another $4,000. That is for 24 months in total of employment. Some people who are on a very large income might wonder why you would be excited about $2,500. Let me assure you that if you are only earning $25,000 or $30,000 that is a significant bonus. It is an incentive for people who might need to buy a car and, in fact, who might need to put weekly fuel into that car. I think it is a very serious incentive indeed.
The other major initiative is what we have called the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. As I said, we acknowledge that some Australians are a long way from work. It might be that they are in a metropolitan area and they need to move from one side of the city to another. We acknowledge that often takes some funds to relocate. They might be in a rural area and need to go to a metropolitan area, or they might be in a metropolitan region and need to shift to a country town. All of that takes some funding, and so we will be supplying special financial support for that relocation. I think that is an extraordinarily sensible thing to do.
We did, in fact, have a relocation program under John Howard's government when I was the minister for workforce participation. We took numbers of people from rural and regional areas on the coast of New South Wales across to the mining jobs in and around Perth. Those were extraordinarily successful relocations. People were trained when they reached the mining regions and they were supported by having bonds paid for their flats and hostels, in the first instance for the first two months. Those people not only succeeded in that work with that relocation but also talked some of their long-term unemployed friends from the east coast of New South Wales to come across to the goldfields. That relocation program was extraordinarily successful, but it was abolished under Labor.
We heard just before the House was suspended an extraordinary contribution from the Labor member for Franklin. In moving her amendment she suggested that there are much better ways to go about getting people into employment in Australia. I find it extraordinary that she has these bright ideas, given that none of them were put into play when Labor was in government. Let me remind you what happened when the coalition was in opposition. Labor claimed to be concerned for youth unemployment, but in fact under Labor the unemployment rate for young people rose from 9.9 per cent to over 12.7 per cent. It is over 30 per cent in my area and is higher for our Indigenous young Australians. There were 55,000 young Australians unemployed after six years of the Labor government. I find that figure extraordinary. Those are young people who deserve a future. Under Labor they had no future; just the dole queue.
We are committed to action. That is why we are working actively through our VET reform task force with stakeholders, training organisations and industries to improve the fractured training system left behind by those opposite. Labor members opposite stripped away the employer incentives and destroyed the hopes of many young people of ever gaining a traineeship or an apprenticeship and, therefore, meaningful employment. We understand only too well that it is not the government that creates real jobs with real productivity outcomes; it is small businesses, larger businesses and family businesses. We have introduced these reforms that will try to create an environment for greater economic growth because a strong economy creates new opportunities for all Australians, including our younger job seekers.
It is sheer hypocrisy for those on the other side to talk from their now position of opposition about superior programs for employing young people when they continue to refuse to support removing the carbon tax. The carbon tax is job destroying. In my region in particular we know that it means our dairy farmers cannot employ milkers. The refrigerant gas tax, which was called the carbon equivalent tax by Labor, puts another $100,000 on re-gassing large cool stores. People look very much like having to let go some of their hundreds of employees. So as long as Labor and the Greens continue to block the repeal of the carbon tax in the Senate we know that they are not serious about giving young people a job. It is a clear message to the electors of Australia that they do not take their democratic decisions seriously. We also want to scrap the mining tax, a tax that caused great uncertainty and collects practically no revenue but puts a dead hand on mining enterprises that are already finding it tougher as the years go by.
We are also re-establishing the rule of law on construction sites by reintroducing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Our great building industry was always an employer of apprentices and young people. Labor blocked the most critical reforms at the behest of the unions. We will try to put order and productivity once again into the Australian building and construction industry. We have also committed to slashing red tape and green tape to free up businesses. When you free up businesses they can start to employ again.
It was appalling that the unions tried to tamper with the 457 visas that brought skilled labour to rural areas. You might ask: what has that got to do with youth unemployment? If businesses cannot employ vets at the local piggery as they used to be able to do under the 457 visas—they were mostly vets from the Philippines—then they cannot expand as a business and employ in entry-level piggery jobs young people who can work their way through to being managers. We will be setting that 457 visa blockage right as the months go by.
The job commitment bonus is a significant investment by the coalition. It will help young, long-term unemployed Australians make a positive change in their life, specifically moving away from welfare dependency to finding and keeping a job, to gaining self-respect and to gaining a sense of being able to put back into the community that has nurtured them. The job commitment bonus is an incentive to young people to be persistent in pursuing employment opportunities. Unfortunately, if you have grown up in a household with generations who have never had a job, the work ethic of persisting with an employer and working through problems and difficulties is something you may not have learnt at your mother or father's knee. But with an incentive like this we are hoping that younger people will learn the value of persisting and committing long term to an employer. With this incentive at the end of 24 months there will be a substantial cash bonus for them. It is about committing to the world of work rather than being trapped in the world of welfare. The bonus is an extra feature to the support already available to young job seekers.
We heard that the opposition are concerned that New Zealanders in the protected special category visa holder group are not eligible for this job commitment bonus. They thought that was a terrible thing. As we are presenting this program it is consistent with our election commitment. This is a targeted measure. It is an investment by this government to help young, long-term unemployed Australians. We want them to make a positive change in their life. This payment is not intended as further income support; it is a bonus to reward young Australian job seekers who find and keep a job. It is consistent with the bilateral social security arrangements between Australia and New Zealand. Eligible New Zealand SCV holders still have access to income support. We make no apology about encouraging young people to get and keep a job. The bonus is a targeted measure. We acknowledge that not all Australian job seekers are eligible. The fact that a protected SCV holder is not eligible for the job commitment bonus does not impact on whether they are eligible for other Australian social security payments.
The previous Labor contribution to this debate mentioned that their Move 2 Work program makes special provisions for redundant workers whereas our Relocation to Take Up a Job program does not. The Relocation to Take Up a Job program is a targeted initiative for the long-term unemployed. The purpose of our program is to offer assistance to long-term unemployed people to help with the costs of relocation so they are able to move to where the jobs are.
The government has other specific measures in place to assist people who are made redundant from work, such as through Job Services Australia. Again, I find the condemnation of our program is quite empty. When we look at the legacy of Labor in terms of the very long unemployment queues, particularly for young people, I find it quite extraordinary that there is criticism of these two programs.
A legislative instrument created under the new provisions will allow the Secretary of the Department of Employment to prescribe circumstances where the job commitment bonus will not be available, such as circumstances where the social security system has been abused. We want to make sure that we do not have welfare cheats. We do not want to have people spending a lot of time working out how to get around our welfare system. We want all the energies of our young people to be dedicated to finding work and staying in work. That is why these two programs are so important.
Particularly as a member from regional Victoria, I say that we need these programs. We have young people idling away their lives. We have young girls with very young babies, three children before they are 19. They need a lot of support to find jobs and to get affordable, accessible child care. Then they need special support if they need to relocate, and certainly a bonus if they stay in the job for at least 12 if not 24 months. I commend our legislation to the House.
I am very pleased to be speaking on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. I say to the member for Murray as she leaves the chamber, the opposition is supporting this legislation. I think that tone in which she delivered her contribution was unfortunate. I think it is the case that everyone in this chamber wants to see youth unemployment in this country reduced. We all know how important it is to give young people the opportunities that they want to get the education, training and work that is very difficult for so many of them at this point in time. I do not think it is helpful for either side of the parliament to try to make out that one side cares more than the other about what is a very, very serious national issue.
I want to go through some of the matters that have been talked about recently by those who are doing some very serious work to address youth unemployment. Members may have seen that last month that the Brotherhood of St Laurence released a report Australian youth unemployment 2014: snapshot. It highlighted the dramatic increase in the rate of youth unemployment. Youth unemployment in Australia now sits at over 12 per cent, which is more than double the overall rate of unemployment. Nobody thinks that this is a good thing. We did see a decrease in the rate of youth unemployment over the last 30 years. But what is clear from the latest figures is that the global financial crisis has had a dramatic impact on young people's employment prospects. I think it is important that we all acknowledge that we have a serious issue in this country with youth unemployment. The Brotherhood of St Laurence's report indicates that youth unemployment currently represents almost 40 per cent of all unemployment in Australia. More than one in three unemployed Australians are aged between 15 and 24. Of course, the Brotherhood of St Laurence's report was not the first to highlight this is as a growing issue.
Late last year the COAG Reform Council handed down its report, Education in Australia 2012: five years of performance. Part of that report was devoted to the transition from year 12 to work. Its findings were also very concerning. While the report did find that there has been some improvement in year 12 attainment, young people's full participation in work or study after leaving school is in decline. Some might say it is only a small decline. But given everyone in this House would argue we want to see it going in the other direction, this fall by more than one percentage point in the proportion of 17- to 24-year-olds fully engaged in post-school study, training or work is something we all want to see reversed. More than a quarter of Australians aged between 17 and 24 are not participating in work or study following school.
In some areas, the figures are even worse. In Queensland, just under 31 per cent of young people are not fully engaged. In South Australia it is 30.5 per cent. But the most alarming figures are from Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In Tasmania, the figure is 33.4 per cent, and in the Northern Territory it is 42.3 per cent. Especially in those two areas, these are very, very serious youth participation problems. Of course, it is the case that Australia is not alone. For example, in France the youth unemployment rate is hovering stubbornly around 25 per cent and in Britain 21 per cent of people under 25 are unemployed.
Around the world, we are seeing young people almost three times more likely than adults to be unemployed. The upward trend in global unemployment continues to impact young people very seriously. The ILO 'has warned of a "scarred" generation of young workers facing a dangerous mix of high unemployment, increased inactivity and precarious work in developed countries'. Certainly, Labor understands and I think the government understands that youth unemployment is a very serious issue for the nation. It is why we are all supporting the measure that is before the House tonight.
In government, we put forward various measures to tackle this issue; focusing on trying to get more young people to finish school and get into continuing training or higher education. One example I wanted to raise today is the Youth Transitions program. This helps young people who have not completed, or are at risk of not completing year 12 or an equivalent qualification, and have barriers that make it difficult to participate in education, training or employment. Providers in this program work with young people to help make a successful transition to further education, training or employment. One such program is being run by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in some of the most disadvantaged areas of Melbourne and its outskirts. Their Peninsula Youth Connections program provides flexible individual support to young people at risk of disengaging from education and training and therefore not finishing year 12 or equivalent schooling.
In 2012, the Brotherhood of St Laurence undertook an evaluation of the program that had been running in the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. It found that, of those participating in the program, 70 per cent were successful, moving into work or further learning. This of course is a very positive result. Through this evaluation, the brotherhood also learnt a great deal about how we should be designing programs to help people, particularly young people, with these transitions. It found that intensive case management was integral to getting people the support they needed. Community outreach, with strong relationships between regional services and community stakeholders, is also important. There is a need for a greater cohesion and partnership between community, youth and family services, and school support services. All of these should inform further investment in initiatives to help young people manage this period of their lives.
We do, of course, need to invest in our young people so that they stay at school, get the education they need and can get the jobs of the future. None of us can expect young people to get well-paid jobs without providing them with this proper support. I, for one, think we need new and innovative thinking in this area and urgent investment in our young people so that we can reverse the current trend. I did announce that Labor will be conducting a major review of our social policies over the next 12 to 18 months. We understand that we have a rapidly changing economy. Of course, for many people that provides a great opportunity, but for others, particularly young people, there is a great deal of risk. These risks are particularly acute at periods of transition between jobs or when young people are transitioning from school to work. We all have a responsibility to find the best ways to support young people at this time. It will require investment. The initiative before us today is one such investment, which we are pleased to support, but I do not think it will be sufficient.
We are concerned about the cuts the government has announced to the Better Schools Plan. One of the very important parts of that initiative, of course, was additional funding going into some of our very disadvantaged schools. We want to see that investment continued to make sure that the young people who really need additional support get it, whether it is to get the education and training they need at school or transition off to TAFE or into supported jobs. Whatever it might be, we know we need to do a lot more, all of us together, so that we do not see a generation of unemployed, underemployed, low-skilled young people. That will not be good for the individuals, it will not be good for our country and it certainly will not be good for our economy.
As I said, we are supporting this legislation today. We want to do everything we can to help make sure that young people make the transition from school to work. I do not think that this on its own will be enough. That is not a criticism of the initiative; it is really just to say that this is a very serious problem facing our country. It is one area where we need to work together to find the best ways to support young people as they transition from school. All of us want to see young people transitioning to ongoing training or work. These big social policy questions in our country need to be addressed with the facts. The evidence is certainly in—our young people need support.
I acknowledge the comments of the former speaker, the member for Jagajaga. She is right that members on both sides of the chamber believe that youth unemployment, in particular, is a big challenge for our nation. But the question is: what should we do about it? Let us put in perspective the challenge that we face. Under the Labor government, the unemployment rate for young people rose from 9.9 per cent to 12.7 per cent—that is, an additional 55,000 young Australians did not have a job after six years of Labor being in power. In the chamber, we can agree that youth unemployment is a big issue, but the reality is that we have very different approaches when it comes to what we can do about it.
Prior to September's resounding election victory and in the early days of government, the coalition could not have spoken louder or more clearly about its determination to deliver a stronger Australia, built on more opportunity and more jobs. While we are realistic about the challenges, we remain undaunted. The Howard government gifted the former Labor government a $20 billion surplus and no net debt. By contrast, the outgoing Labor administration left this coalition government with $123 billion in deficit and $460 billion in projected gross debt over the next four years. Without changes, the budget will remain in deficit until 2023-24 and the debt will rise to $667 billion. This equates to $29,000 for each and every Australian. We cannot go on like this and the coalition will not let it continue. We have successfully confronted Labor debt and deficit before and we will do it again.
A big part of this solution will come from re-firing the economy so that businesses are expanding, prospering and employing more Australians. In my electorate of Longman, the great local employers are small businesses—retail, tourism and light industry. They need the confidence to grow and invest and create jobs. They could not do this under Labor while being punitively taxed and regulated. What they require from their government is freedom—freedom from the stifling costs and overheads that stem from too much bureaucracy and over-regulation. They need fewer taxes and lower taxes. As far as possible they want government out of their lives. This is not only a fair request but also an economically sound one. That is why the coalition government is moving to scrap the carbon tax and why it has already eliminated most of the 100 tax changes announced but not enacted by the former Labor government. Together, these actions will mean lower taxes, less paperwork and more certainty. This government is also unshackling businesses from at least $1 billion of red tape and green tape every single year. I am actively working with local businesses to secure our share of these savings. As part of my commitment, the member for Kooyong and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with responsibility for deregulation came to Longman shortly after last September's election to meet with local businesses about their individual cases of excessive regulation. With that red tape gone they will be able to breathe and grow again, ultimately employing more locals. My community is a growth region and that is why new commercial and residential projects are crucial. I, along with the state government, have been a strong advocate of the North East Business Park project, which will spark economic activity and create 27,000 new jobs.
Building better infrastructure is another productivity-increasing measure. In my electorate, that means opportunities blossoming from the coalition's $8.5 billion Bruce Highway upgrade. Between the Sunshine Coast and the Longman electorate region of Moreton Bay, the Bruce Highway is the connector for employment and tourism and is used by many students of the University of the Sunshine Coast. It also carries a large number of commuters from our region to Brisbane. With $3.3 billion of the coalition's Bruce Highway project targeted on upgrades from the Pine River through to the Sunshine Coast, we have a long-term strategic plan that makes travel safer and unlocks the potential of the area. Fifty million dollars has been allocated to the planning and design of six lanes between Caboolture and Caloundra. The Bruce Highway improvements are occurring in tandem with the development programs for Caloundra South and Caboolture West. All up, these provide a huge shot in the arm for the growth of our region.
These infrastructure-building initiatives underscore a plan for the economy that is strong and multilayered and that will act to reboot local economies, removing physical, psychological and administrative barriers so that, once again, hope can float and jobs can flow. But, it is a plan the people of Longman have been waiting for far too long. Under the six years of the former Labor government, unemployment—especially youth unemployment—soared throughout my local region, as did the cost of living. Fuelled by the carbon tax, gas prices jumped by 63 per cent, electricity prices climbed by 93 per cent, water and sewerage bills were up by 63 per cent, education costs rose by 39 per cent and medical and hospital costs increased by 46 per cent. The coalition's scrapping of the carbon tax will bring immediate relief to households by cutting off the tax's reach into almost every aspect of daily life, including grocery and transport costs. Despite abolishing the carbon tax we will keep the compensation regime of tax cuts and pension and benefit increases. So that means tax cuts and pension increases without a carbon tax. We will also take pressure off public hospitals by restoring the private health insurance rebate as soon as we responsibly can, saving more money for everyone.
Our cost-cutting, jobs-growth plan also has an eye on the future. The stark fact to emerge from Australia's ageing population is that this generation will be paying to support the retirement of the previous one, on an unprecedented scale. The percentage of the population aged 75 or over is expected to rise from about 6.4 per cent to 14.4 per cent of the population. While the values, attitudes and choices of baby boomers and generation Y might seem worlds apart, both groups must tackle the issues together for mutual benefit. We are on the cusp of a demographic super-bubble. When the baby boomers leave the workforce, they will take away not only their skills but also their taxpaying capacity. While the preceding generation produced 2.5 million retirees, we now have four million Australians on the brink of retirement and about to draw on age pensions, pharmaceutical benefits and other government assistance. Our current immigration rate is insufficient to compensate for a shift of this magnitude. The 1990s annual permanent migrant intake of about 100,000 has increased by merely 90,000. This growth is nowhere near strong enough to fill the breach caused by the ebb in retirement.
There are very good reasons for making a start now on this key area of public policy. As the Productivity Commission highlighted, if the pension age is not recalibrated or no other solution is found, taxes will have to increase by 21 per cent to pay for the ageing of the population. By the turn of the century, Australians will count more 100-year-olds than babies. So what do we do? The answer must strongly accommodate raising the productive capacity of the economy. If more people are in better jobs and earning higher real wages, they will pay more tax. So we must build a vibrant deregulated economy which is part of a liberalised trade environment.
I am proud to be part of a government with an ambitious deregulation agenda, driven by a whole-of-government approach. I commend the Prime Minister, ably assisted by the member for Kooyong, for taking personal responsibility for deregulating the economy. Increasing our nation's productivity requires us to recognise that it is private enterprise, not government, which creates wealth, prosperity and jobs. In an area where the market is not best placed to do it, the government must take the lead in productive investment. That is why the coalition has such a strong infrastructure agenda—and I note that the assistant minister is in the House. It is why we as a government have spoken about opening up the north of Australia and why we should talk more about the possibilities of a sovereign wealth fund.
While the previous generation saw a massive increase in productivity from women entering the workforce, future generations will not enjoy the same demographic advantage. Undoubtedly, women entering the workforce triggered the biggest productivity gain of the past 30 years. For this generation, there is no equivalent untapped labour force stimulus. Generation Y and successive generations will grow up with the majority of women already in the workforce. We will have to take advantage of new technology and expand into new markets. Future generations will require constant upskilling and further training. They will be willing to turn themselves into a more creative workforce to achieve productivity gains similar to those of previous generations. In the meantime, landmark policies, such as the Abbott government's paid parental leave scheme, have been designed to allow women to stay in the workforce. So, effectively, PPL is another productivity-increasing measure. It is an economic driver and, as such, should be viewed as a workforce entitlement, not a welfare payment.
The economic and social challenges of today, and those on the horizon, demand that we grow a substantive workforce—as large and robust as possible. An important part of that equation is recognising the damaging effects of unemployment and doing everything in our power to diminish it. Wherever we can, we need to help people to find a job and to keep a job so that lives are lifted up, while the cycle of welfare dependency struggles for traction.
This government has faith in our young people. We want to help them avert an early slide into welfare dependency and at the same time reward positive, pro-work attitudes and endeavour. That is why we have thoughtfully considered and now introduced the legislation which is the business of this debate: the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. It is an investment to help the long-term unemployed, particularly young job seekers, find and keep a job. The first element will be aptly known as the job commitment bonus. Eligible job seekers aged 18 to 30 will be paid $2,500 if they can secure a job and remain in continuous employment, and off income support, for 12 months. These very same job seekers will be eligible for an additional $4,000 if they remain in continuous employment for a further 12 months—that is, two years in total. This is about incentive, reward and fostering good work habits, which not only build skills and income, contributing to individual and national wealth, but raise personal pride and confidence, positively impacting relationships, lifestyle and happiness.
Schedule 2 of this bill acknowledges that many job seekers are dissuaded from employment opportunities by the prohibitive cost of relocation. The Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job measure directly addresses this conflict, providing financial support to eligible job seekers who have been receiving Newstart, youth allowance or parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months to relocate for employment or an apprenticeship. They will receive up to $6,000 for relocating to a regional area to take up a job. Up to $3,000 will be paid to eligible job seekers who relocate from a regional area to a metropolitan area to begin a job. This $3,000 will also be available to eligible job seekers who move from one capital city with higher unemployment to another with lower unemployment in order to take up employment.
Unemployment can have a corrosive effect on individuals, families and society at large. Over time, its debilitating features amount to far more than economic consequences. Doing nothing to encourage the work- ready but long-term unemployed into the workforce is cruelty, not compassion. This government is obliged to do what it can to provide real incentives and assistance to encourage job seekers to find suitable work and stay off welfare. It is part of our overall plan to build a stronger, more productive and diverse economy with lower taxes and smaller government, an economy that delivers higher real incomes and better services and an economy that ultimately means more jobs. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to make a contribution to this debate and, in particular, to support the amendment moved by the member for Franklin. I note—and indeed welcome—the comments of the member for Longman in relation to the diversity of the impacts of unemployment on people's lives. That is an area of policy upon which members on all sides of this House agree, even though—as my contribution will make clear—I see this legislation as setting out an insufficient path to alleviate those concerns, both economic and social.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 would amend the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to enable the implementation of the job commitment bonus and also the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program—both election commitments of the government.
The job commitment bonus will provide an incentive to encourage young, long-term unemployed Australians to remain off income support payments and will increase employment participation amongst a group which is recording significantly higher rates of unemployment compared to the general population. This is a laudable goal. Young Australians aged between 18-30 who have been receiving Newstart allowance or youth allowance, other than as an apprentice or a full-time student, for a period of at least 12 months would be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500 should they remain in gainful work—which is broadly defined—and off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Recipients would also qualify for a further tax-free bonus payment of $4,000 if they remained in continuous gainful work for an additional 12 months—that is, a continuous period of 24 months in total. These are useful initiatives, though they do fall a long way short of constituting anything like a jobs plan.
The Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program would provide financial assistance to long-term unemployed job seekers who have been receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance—again, other than as an apprentice or a full-time student—or a parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months, to relocate for the purpose of commencing ongoing employment.
I support this provision as I believe it promotes the right to work as well as the more effective operation of the labour market. However, it is hard to see this as a panacea, given the take-up rate of similar programs in the past. I am concerned that the non-payment period prescribed in this legislation has been increased to a level that is unduly harsh. I trust that this is not a precedent for other payments and I particularly support the second limb of the amendment moved by the member for Franklin in this regard.
The amendment calls on the government to publicly review, by 30 June 2015, the impact of the extension of the non-payment period for recipients of the relocation to take up a job payment if the person is unable to work the required six months. This is an important amendment. It would provide an evidence base to either allay concerns such as those I am expressing or to form a basis for reconsideration if those concerns are found to be well founded. It is an amendment that is sensible and should be supported.
More generally, the amendment also notes that if the government were really serious about addressing youth unemployment, it would be providing more support for those workers whose jobs will be lost, as was recently announced, and would be providing more support and training for young people generally. This is the critical question. What Australia needs is a jobs plan that is a comprehensive response to rising unemployment, particularly among people, and also declining workforce participation.
I value the opportunity to speak about social inclusion—moving on from the closing remarks of the member for Longman—and the opportunities for young people. I also welcome the remarks made by the minister in his second reading speech acknowledging the impact of unemployment, especially unemployment over an extended period. The backdrop to this debate is, of course, the seemingly endless announcement of job losses in this country.
This government promised to create one million jobs over five years. To be on track, they would have needed to create over 100,000 jobs by now, having been in office for six very long months. Tragically, they are a long way behind already, and I note the increasing reluctance of those opposite to cite this coalition promise and an even more pronounced reluctance to discuss how it plans to achieve its target, or at least try. Even when the promise was made, there was no outline about how it would or could be achieved, just the usual boilerplate three-word slogans, and now we are seeing the effect that attempting to run the country on three-word slogans has.
I draw the House's attention to the decline in employment participation rates, particularly among young people. This is a matter squarely raised in the title of this bill but much less so in its substance. To be fair, those matters were found in the relevant coalition policy document. They were part of the coalition's plan to increase employment participation. In fact, these two policies were all of it and that is nowhere near enough.
The Reserve Bank of Australia has reported a 1¼ percentage point fall in the participation rate of younger workers aged 15 to 24, which accounted for around 30 per cent of the decline in aggregate employment participation. This result means the proportion of Australians active in the labour market is at its lowest level since October 2006. That was, of course, under the Howard government. This is a startling figure. RBC Capital Markets economist Su-Lin Ong's view on the figures was:
It's more than likely that there is some discouraged worker effect going on, that the creation of jobs is occurring at a pace that is enough to absorb new entrants …
So participants are dropping out of the workforce, and that is pretty disappointing because higher levels of participation are quite key in lifting Australia's overall growth rate.
It is so important to address participation through targeted interventions in education and training, through the provision of affordable and accessible child care—rather than an expensive and unnecessary paid parental leave scheme targeted at wealthy Australians—and through making the most of the powers of government to get the incentives right to support jobs and to work at the multifaceted task of identifying barriers to employment participation and breaking them down.
Members opposite are keen to talk of what government cannot or should not do; they should instead look to see how we can respond to our shared challenges in this critical debate, but the government's priorities are elsewhere. The government sees fit to privatise throwing money at millionaire mothers, providing tax breaks for the superannuation of millionaires and, even in this rather narrower debate, blaming everything on the carbon tax. But all it can manage on jobs is a hastily cobbled together bill that was no doubt introduced as a fig leaf so the government can be seen to be doing something about youth unemployment.
The consumer confidence figures released last week accord with the aforementioned discouraged worker effect, showing that people's confidence levels are as low now as they were during the global financial crisis, and this is hardly surprising. People are seeing big employers either massively downsizing or leaving our shores completely and a government resolute in its inaction. The difference between now and the time of the global financial crisis is that Australia had a government then that took action to fight for and save jobs. Labor did not take the member for Curtin's wait-and-see approach as shadow treasurer. Unfortunately, in this instance, we now see the consistency of those opposite when in opposition and now in government. We now have a wait-and-see government on jobs.
Whenever I visit schools in the electorate of Scullin, I ask about their Building the Education Revolution projects—projects that created jobs when Australia desperately needed them. School communities are proud of these new facilities. Not a single school or parent has raised a problem with me about these BER projects; quite the opposite in fact. People were aware of the need for government stimulus to fight off a global recession and secure local jobs. I think there is now a hunger for leadership on jobs. People are aware that something is not right with this government in this regard. It plays games of chicken with major employers and chases them away. The coalition's bizarre and reflexive opposition to job creation and retention made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
In recent days, we have had more bad news about job losses in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. A couple of weeks ago, just south of my electorate in the electorate of the member for Batman, La Trobe University announced it would be making 350 full-time positions redundant. The full impact is likely to affect around 400 staff at a number of campuses. I have met with NTEU representatives as well as the vice-chancellor to discuss the challenges the university faces and what can be done. My thoughts are with all those who work at La Trobe at this difficult time of uncertainty. As I said, while this university's main campus is just outside my electorate, Scullin has over 4,400 people employed in the education and training sector. I could not find any response from the Minister for Education or from the Minister for Employment about these job losses, just the usual apathetic silence. What is the government's plan for these employees? I suspect it is the same as the one for employees of Holden, Toyota, Qantas and Golden Circle—that is, no plan at all.
In Scullin, the rate of youth unemployment is 17.3 per cent for those aged between 15 and 19 and 8.3 per cent for those aged between 20 and 24, both well above the national average. This is clearly too high and something I think both sides of politics want to reduce. In government, one way Labor sought to tackle this problem was by establishing trade training centres. I have spent some time at the Outer Northern Trade Training Centre in Lalor and experienced the positive benefits contributing to children's lives and giving them the skills to pursue potential career paths. Trade training centres were a way to include young people in the employment market so that they can be a part of society more generally—recognising the broader dimensions of involvement in employment for people's lives.
It is beyond belief to me that the coalition does not support trade training centres. It seems to be out of sheer spite because Labor introduced them that they must somehow be a bad thing by reason of that fact alone. What is wrong with these centres is never really spelt out by those opposite, but like so many of Labor's positive initiatives the coalition is simply against them. The trade training centres form part of Labor's $1 billion job plan. The coalition are in the process of gutting this plan, but are not replacing it with an agenda for jobs. The member for Franklin has spoken eloquently in support of Labor's training and skills agenda, which is a testament to Labor's commitment to standing up for jobs and to building employment participation with real action and a comprehensive plan. Of course, I share her views.
Being in employment is vital for social inclusion. In the electorate of Scullin—as in other electorates in Australia—social dislocation and isolation are significant and systemic problems. There is a correlation between people with financial stress, which often stems from unemployment, and family violence. I say with much regret that Scullin is consistently ranked higher than most other electorates when it comes to rates of family violence. This is just one of a range of social problems, including high rates of youth mental health incidents. Government has a role to play in addressing these systemic problems, whatever members opposite might say. I certainly do not claim to have all the answers, but I know that tackling unemployment in a meaningful way, particularly from an early age, would assist with a range of other social problems that we debate in this place.
To the extent that this bill addresses youth unemployment, I welcome it and those two components, subject to some minor reservations. These issues need a whole-of-government approach, not one where the government gives with one hand and takes with the other. One aspect of this bill is to reward young people who stay in a job, but as I have outlined above there needs to be a job for them to get in the first place and they need the skills to get these jobs. What is absent in this debate, other than contributions from members on this side of the chamber, is a meaningful discussion about how those skills might be applied.
I note, in respect of the relocation scheme, that in the explanatory memorandum to the bill the relocation payment can be for relocation between capital cities in metropolitan areas, but this would be limited to cases where the relocation is to a capital city with a lower unemployment rate. For example, as at February this year a person could relocate from Hobart to Melbourne as Melbourne has a lower unemployment rate than Hobart. Whilst the unemployment figures for Hobart are certainly concerning, I am also concerned about present and future unemployment for young people in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. What options does the government have for them? By cutting education and training and having no plan for jobs, what good is any reward of this type? It seems like a cruel hoax.
While the initiatives contained in this bill are, for the most part, welcome responses at a minor level to pressing social and economic concerns, they are simply not enough. That is not good enough to meet the great challenges of boosting productivity and participation and to meet the great moral challenge of standing up for Australian jobs.
I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. I note the member for Scullin's arguments. The coalition does have a plan, and this bill is part of it. The coalition is committed to helping Australians to find and retain a job. We do not underestimate the size of the challenge, particularly in places with historically high levels of intergenerational unemployment, like those in my electorate of Hinkler. This government is committed to ensuring that any Australian who is capable of working can get a job. We are helping job seekers into work by introducing a Seniors Employment Incentive Payment. This is important in areas that have an older-than-average population, such as Wide Bay-Burnett. A business will receive a payment of up to $3,250 if they hire a job seeker over the age of 50 who has been unemployed for at least six months and is receiving income support. This bill also introduces the job commitment bonus to encourage long-term unemployed young Australians to find a job and remain off welfare. The payment will be available to people aged 18 to 30 who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. They will receive $2,500 when they remain off unemployment for 12 months and a further $4,000 when they have held down a job for two years.
Employment gives people the ability to pay their own way and to provide for their own families. The people of this great nation should be able to depend on their elected representatives for assistance when they need it, but that does not mean that we should be building a nation of dependants.
The coalition has a proven track record of growing the economy, reducing debt and getting people into work and off unemployment benefits. The former Australian Treasurer Peter Costello delivered 10 budget surpluses, cleared all debt, cut taxes and put $60 billion in the Future Fund. In the final year of the Howard government the local unemployment rate was just six per cent in my electorate of Hinkler. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments the unemployment rate increased to 9.6 per cent. That is the fourth highest unemployment rate by electorate in the country.
The coalition made it clear prior to September 7 last year that if elected we would revitalise the Howard government's Work for the Dole program. Under the Howard government, on average, one in three people who participated in Work for the Dole got a job. The Labor government altered the scheme. Under Labor's scheme, Work for the Dole was not compulsory. After 12 months on the dole job seekers aged between 18 and 49 are instead asked to undertake work experience activities for six months in every year. The coalition is moving to re-establish an effective scheme that will benefit all stakeholders.
Hardworking constituents often complain to me that under the current system people receiving unemployment benefits are not required to give anything back to the community. Australians who are able to work must be encouraged to work for a living. We are fortunate to live in a country where the government provides a safety net to those who find themselves without employment. People living in other countries are not quite so lucky. Requiring Australians to work for the dole will ensure the obligation is mutual.
Work for the dole programs create opportunities by giving people soft skills like routine, structure, presentation skills and, most importantly, access to potential employers. Unfortunately, in many cases of intergenerational welfare parents have not taught these skills to their children. Punctuality, teamwork and commitment are things a person typically learns at a young age.
The coalition is determined to prevent young people from sliding into long-term welfare dependency by rewarding positive pro-work behaviours. The employers that I have spoken to say they are more than willing to train young people, but they need the basics before they start work. They struggle to find people who dress appropriately, arrive on time and have the right attitude, because enthusiasm trumps experience every time. As I indicated in my maiden speech, I intend to do everything I can to create the hope, opportunity and reward that the young people of my electorate deserve. We know the effects of long-term unemployment on individuals, families and communities can be extremely damaging. Unemployment and financial hardship are often contributing factors in cases of domestic violence, marital breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, health problems and declining school attendance. And as we see regularly in my electorate, boredom leads to vandalism, and that leads to general nuisance behaviour. Unemployment affects every sector of our community, including schools and councils, and ties up our valuable emergency resources.
I recently joined state MPs Ted Sorensen and Anne Maddern to meet a local organisation that works to address youth homelessness. They are funded to help 16 people per year in their shelter but actually assist about 50. Anecdotally, they say there has been an increase in youth homelessness in our region, and they attribute that increase in part to a decline in the soft skills I mentioned earlier. While any number of issues contribute to homelessness, they say fewer parents in the region are teaching their children the domestic skills needed to care for themselves as young adults. Fortunately, there are many hardworking organisations trying to address this issue so that the same problem will not beset future generations. My electorate office is regularly contacted by people complaining that Centrelink has failed them—and in some cases, on further investigation, my staff discover the constituent has exhausted their advance payments or their loans from Centrelink, or they have failed to attend a meeting with their job service provider, or have failed to provide the necessary forms. Or, quite frankly—they just do not want to work.
Unfortunately there are many people with a sense of entitlement who ruin the reputation of those who genuinely need support. And for those who want to work, being unemployed for an extended period can erode their skills, confidence and sense of purpose and pride, which can lead to a cycle that makes it even harder to find work. I recognise that one of the major barriers to finding employment in the Hinkler electorate is the number of job vacancies. We on this side of the House understand that governments do not create jobs—businesses do. That is why we are working to attract investment to the region and to give local businesses the confidence they need to employ staff.
Our policies—such as cutting red tape and repealing the carbon tax—will save businesses time and money. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, and the Minerals Council of Australia recently took the unprecedented step of releasing a joint statement. The
Australia's carbon tax is one of the highest in the world. It is making our key industries less competitive every day it stays in place.
Most businesses have been unable to pass their carbon tax-related costs on to the customer. For small business especially, this has been a major burden that has reduced profitability, supressed employment and added to already difficult conditions.
…
Acting now to repeal the carbon tax would boost business confidence and should be part of a broader national push to reduce higher energy costs.
Delaying the repeal until the new Senate sits would not achieve anything for the environment. It would simply expose business to increasing and damaging uncertainty over the electricity prices they will be obliged to pay from 1 July 2014.
They go on to urge the Senate to repeal the carbon tax as soon as possible, and you would think the Leader of the Opposition, after Labor's significant defeat at the September 2013 election, would urge his Labor colleagues to respect the will of the Australian people. But I guess that is too much to expect from a party that in a period of just three years gave us two prime ministers, two treasurers, five assistant treasurers and six ministers for small business.
Repealing the carbon tax is a request made by businesses of all shapes and sizes across Australia. But that is not all we are doing to help business. Later this week, the first regulation repeal day will be held in parliament. We will begin slashing unnecessary red and green tape to save businesses time and money. And, of particular interest to my electorate, we are providing $6.5 million for 25 research projects to ensure the continued sustainability of Australian fisheries, including expanding the Status of key Australian fish stocks report to include more species. We have suspended Labor's flawed marine management plan, and we have created a new plan based on science and consultation with our stakeholders. Last month we announced $4.75 million for Hervey Bay roads. We have also announced funding to finish flood repairs at the Port of Bundaberg to help the sugar industry, because the coalition understands that the delivery of well-planned infrastructure in a timely manner is vital to helping businesses get their product to market. It also facilitates service delivery to regional Australia and provides long-term employment and opportunities for training and development. So, together, over the next 10 years, the Abbott and Newman governments will spend $6.7 billion upgrading the ailing Bruce Highway.
I also look forward to delivering on our commitment to establish a national stronger regions fund. Councils and community groups will be able to apply for grants for capital works that will regenerate the community in areas with high unemployment, like my electorate of Hinkler. But as a former business owner, I understand that infrastructure is not the only hurdle regional businesses have to overcome. Here in Australia regulation is high, input costs are high, labour costs are high and the Australian dollar is high, which of course makes profits low. All of this makes it difficult to expand. Our policies are giving businesses the confidence they need to employ staff. Earlier this year, Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Hartsuyker, and I met with Impact, a local Job Services Australia provider. During the visit Impact advised us that the majority of their clients have a number of barriers to overcome before they can gain employment. Many are suffering from mental illness, relationship and family breakdown, lack of the soft skills, social isolation, poor communication and low self-esteem.
Bundaberg's labour market comprises a high proportion of small- to medium-sized businesses, with few large employers. And unfortunately small businesses are not typically in a position to invest the time in training people without those soft skills. Job seekers who do not swim when they are thrown in the deep end are promptly returned to the unemployment queue. To combat this problem, Impact has established five social enterprises to provide entry-level employment opportunities. These include a jam-making business that operates from Apple Tree Creek in Bundaberg; a car detailing business; a fishing lure manufacturer; professional cleaning and home maintenance; and a drive-through laundry. Entry-level employees are mentored and supported for six months so they can gain the necessary skills before transitioning to the open labour market. These enterprises have also provided Impact with another income stream, surplus to that provided by the government funding.
While we were at Impact I met a young job seeker who was highly motivated but financially and socially disadvantaged. Talking to him, I discovered he had an arrangement with the Impact board member—Bundaberg Regional Council Deputy Mayor, David Batt. Councillor Batt promised to buy him a tie when he was successful in his endeavours, and, given the job seeker's enthusiasm, I pulled the blue striped tie I was wearing from my neck and donated it to the cause. Unfortunately it was only the second time I had worn the tie, but he was very appreciative, and I have every confidence he will put it to good use.
We are currently reviewing every aspect of Job Services Australia—a review of the system to strike the right balance in flexible service delivery with an aim to implement a streamlined, more effective system from 2015. The key goal of the Job Services system is to get more people into work, and there are organisations like IMPACT that are making this goal a reality. Mr Hartsuyker and I also met with members of various local chamber of commerce groups to discuss the coalition's plan to deliver a stronger economy with more jobs. Unemployment is the single biggest issue in my region, and I am thankful that the minister could take the time to hear from locals and to outline how the government is working to get more people into work. This bill starts that process, and I commend it to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. As the House is aware, this bill introduces two new programs. Firstly, a Job Commitment Bonus, which will go to eligible job seekers between the ages of 18 and 30 who find and hold onto a job for at least 12 months, after having been on Newstart or Youth Allowance for more than a year. Secondly, it introduces the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, which provides eligible job seekers with financial assistance to move in order to find a job in a regional centre or, in certain cases, another metropolitan area.
The opposition will be voting for these measures because we support any attempt to improve youth employment levels, but we do have substantial concerns about this government's approach to jobs more broadly—their lack of a more comprehensive plan and their failure to guarantee the future of other important programs that can impact on young lives at risk of a life in the unemployment queue.
If there is one word to characterise today's labour market it is uncertainty. Yes, last month's job results surprised most economists on the upside, but it was just one month in an otherwise bleak six or so months, and we need to look at the bigger picture. At six per cent the unemployment level announced in February is higher than at any point during the global financial crisis. But even this does not fully reflect the severity of the situation, since the large number of job losses announced since the election are yet to be factored into this unemployment data.
The prevailing theme of this government's first six months has been announcement after announcement of job losses—whether it was the 5,000 job cuts announced at Qantas; the 2,900 direct jobs at Holden; the 2,500 jobs at Toyota; the 1,100 jobs at Rio Tinto in Gove; the 544 at Electrolux; the 200 at Peabody Energy; the 110 at Simplot; or the 200 at Caterpillar. We have seen this government sit on their hands as many thousands of people across Australia have lost their livelihoods, and many thousands of families have lost their means of subsistence.
All in all, across 28 major companies that have announced job cuts since the last election, there are 27,300 jobs that will be leaving Australia over the next few years. These 27,300 jobs demonstrate the substantial uncertainty present in our labour market at the moment. And this uncertainty in the labour market is most pronounced among our young people, as other speakers have said. As the first Youth Unemployment Monitor from the Brotherhood of St Laurence has shown, the current levels of youth unemployment should be a huge concern for all members in this place. I want to acknowledge the work being done by Tony Nicholson and the Brotherhood of St Laurence, as well as a number of other groups in this country who share our concern for youth unemployment.
The unemployment level among youth in Australia is at 12.2 per cent, more than double the aggregate rate. In the Logan area, which is a big part of my own electorate of Rankin, youth unemployment is at an unacceptable 16.5 per cent. In some regions, including much of the state of Tasmania, youth unemployment levels are over 20 per cent, or one in five of all young people. It is no wonder, given those sorts of numbers, that the Brotherhood of St Laurence has described these findings as 'the crisis of youth unemployment'.
My real concern is that youth unemployment could worsen as a result of the actions of this government, including in my own electorate. One recent study by academics from Griffith University, Charles Darwin University, and the University of Newcastle has investigated the future employment vulnerability of regions around Australia. It found that five of the 13 red alert suburbs in metropolitan South-East Queensland that have been identified as having entrenched disadvantage are in Rankin, as are three of the nine suburbs identified for emerging disadvantage. But perhaps the most troubling aspect of this new research into employment vulnerability is the warning that radical austerity would make the situation worse, causing already vulnerable suburbs to become even more vulnerable. The authors specifically single out trades training, a measure already cut by the Abbott government, as crucial to combating spatial patterns of unemployment. Cuts like this will affect already disadvantaged areas via a double whammy effect, of job market inefficiency and a lack of region specific information about job possibilities.
Because of our concerns about youth unemployment, and the regional vulnerability of employment in the face of future cuts, the opposition will be supporting the measures introduced in this legislation. We understand that in the face of rising unemployment it is even harder for less experienced young workers to find a job. This is one of the reasons we will be supporting the incentive provided by the Job Commitment Bonus for young Australians.
We are also supporting the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, as it really is an extension of the existing Move to Work program of the previous Labor government. This sort of relocation incentive is useful for some members of the community in some cases, though in the past it has had a fairly low take-up rate.
The issue we have with the government's approach is that the two programs introduced in this bill merely scratch the surface of what is really needed to combat the weaknesses and uncertainties in the current labour market. I want to touch on three specific concerns I have with their approach.
The first is the failure of this government to present any credible plans to improve the broader jobs market, and look after the workers affected by current uncertainty. Well over a month since Toyota announced the closure of their Australian manufacturing operations, this government is yet to present to Toyota workers with a plan for the future. It is hard to understand this government's callous disregard for people facing an uncertain future after the closure of these major companies. The only explanation for what the opposition leader called this 'wilful neglect' is that this government is anti-jobs. They bend over backwards to find jobs for former Howard government cabinet ministers, but they have not turned their mind to the broader workforce.
The Australian people deserve a government who will do all they can to fight for Australian jobs, and this government has shown themselves to not be up to this task. While this government's anti-jobs approach is devastating for those facing job losses today, their lack of vision for the jobs of the future is even more troubling. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of the 27,000 job losses over the last five months, announced by the 28 companies I mentioned earlier, are likely gone forever—at least in their most recent form. Because of the government's lack of a plan, the young people of Australia will be hit the hardest by our approach. The youth of Australia need a government who can actually articulate a plan for future jobs, one that goes beyond the Prime Minister's glossy brochures promising a million jobs, without any consideration of how to get there.
My second concern about this area of policy is the refusal of the government to guarantee the future of several programs proven to improve the job prospects of young people. It was revealed recently in Senate estimates that the Abbott government has not allocated government funding for the tremendously important Youth Connections scheme past the end of this calendar year. The Youth Connections program provides individualised support to young people at risk of not obtaining a year 12 certificate by re-engaging them in education and giving them pathways to future study and employment, which is so crucial to their job prospects for the rest of their lives. I was fortunate enough to be invited to visit the Logan Youth Connections program run by BoysTown in Woodridge and Kingston in my electorate. I saw firsthand very recently the hugely valuable and life-changing support being provided to young people through this program, as well as the passion and dedication that the talented staff at BoysTown have for the at-risk youth in our community. I want to take this opportunity to commend them for their work.
The program goes well beyond education alone, and it really assists young people to overcome barriers to social cohesion, rebuild their resilience and self-confidence, and re-engage with their community. For many of the young people who enter the Youth Connections program, the alternative paths for them are very bleak—substance abuse, crime or mental health problems. The reviews of this program conducted by what used to be called DEEWR, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Mission Australia and the Brotherhood of St Laurence have been hugely positive. In the first half of 2012 alone, the DEEWR review found that the Youth Connections program had resulted in 4,115 young people commencing or re-engaging in education. For each one of those 4,115 young people, Youth Connections has been a force for good in their lives, improving job prospects for all involved.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence review of the program found that most graduates had maintained some form of outcome several years later. Many had gone on to tertiary study and some were concurrently working and studying—a tremendous outcome. The impact in our Indigenous community has been particularly substantial, with 5,750 Indigenous young people benefiting from Youth Connections in 2010-11, and with 35 per cent recording sustained improvement in their engagement with school and 23 per cent making significant progress.
The Mission Australia study estimated that, if the 30,000 young people that had been supported by Youth Connections each year instead ended up on Newstart, the potential cost to government from income support payments alone would be upwards of $390 million a year, or around $2 billion over five years. With the rising problem of youth unemployment, this government must commit to extending this program beyond the end of this year. That way the great people working in this area and the kids they are helping will get a little bit of certainty in an otherwise uncertain market.
The government's refusal to guarantee future funding of the Youth Connections program comes after the brutal attacks on education funding that have already been announced. In just the first six months of this government, we have seen a backflip on needs-based schools funding and cuts to trade training centres. In the context of rising youth unemployment, there is absolutely no sense in cutting trade training centres, which exist to prepare young people for employment. The trade training centres rolled out by the former Labor government across Australia, including in almost every major regional centre along the Queensland coast from Gold Coast to Bowen, have been hugely successful in bringing school students closer to local industry. The current trade training centres cover programs from aviation engineering to building, horticulture, manufacturing, electrotechnology, allied health, mechanics, plumbing, boat building and panel beating. In Queensland alone, the government has diverted funding from the 123 further proposed trade training centres. Thousands of young people will miss out on the skills, the training and the industry connections that these centres would provide. The government's plan for future jobs should have programs like Youth Connections and trade training centres at the forefront, as these programs are what are going to ensure we have the dynamic, skilled young workers required for the future.
My third concern with the legislation before the House today is the large number of people across Australia who have been excluded by the design of the jobs commitment bonus program—many of them in my community. The new section 861(12) of the Social Security Act would amend the definition of Australian resident to explicitly exclude special category visa holders for the purpose of the bonus. This means that New Zealanders arriving in Australia before 2001 on protected visas who are currently eligible for Centrelink payments have been explicitly excluded in this program. This, to my knowledge, is the first time in the Social Security Act that protected special category visa holders have been explicitly excluded. In my electorate of Rankin, we have a large population of people who may be affected by this change, and I am worried by the precedent that this legislation would set.
As I said before, we will be supporting the introduction of these incentive based programs today, but we need to do more and not less to properly address youth unemployment and prepare for the jobs of the future. The most important focus of our policy response must be on fostering conditions that see the jobs of the future created and the skills and human capital required for these jobs becoming widespread in our community.
If the government are really concerned about tackling youth unemployment, I call on them again to restore and commit to the further funding for Youth Connections and to reconsider their cuts to trade training. If we want Australia to have the dynamic and nimble workforce necessary for Australia to compete globally, we need to go beyond the financial incentives introduced in this bill and really commit to addressing the underlying factors at work in growing our economy and proving that inclusion and growth are complementary and not at odds.
I thank the member for Rankin. I call the member for Braddon, which has been in the news most recently.
It certainly is in the news, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will come to that, you can be sure, to be sure. This bill we are debating, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 makes provision to assist long-term unemployed people transition from welfare payments to paid employment. That is important to me as the elected member for Braddon, and I will speak about that in a moment. It will be achieved through the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job measure. Prior to the election the coalition committed to implementing these two programs. As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, he wants this government to be known as a government that delivers on its commitments, and this legislation does just that. These two programs build on the Tasmanian employment program which was launched six months early by the Minister for Employment, Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz, and me shortly after the 7 September federal election. The Tasmanian employment program provides support for businesses that employ long-term unemployed.
It has been an interesting hour or so as I have listened in my office and then trotted on down to the chamber to listen to the last few contributions from my opponents opposite. They talk about being concerned about jobs. Well, so are we. But the difference between us and them is that we know what to do about it. The honourable member from the other side who spoke previously said, 'Let's talk about the actions of this government.' I am happy to talk about the actions of this government because we are talking about action. We are not talking about platitudes, we are not talking about spin and we are not talking about deceit. We are talking about getting on and delivering on what we said we would deliver. We are getting on with building the economy.
Everybody knows, and elections have now proven, that the public cannot be conned. Labor have no plan to build the economy, only a plan that would trash the economy, and they proved that in six years of sitting on this side of the chamber. I could pass over the many cheap shots that have been made in the last half hour or so, but I probably won't—I'm not that way inclined! Before I get warmed up on that, let me say first that the Job Commitment Bonus is important for Braddon. It is extremely important for the north-west and west coast of Tasmania and King Island because my electorate has a significant problem with intergenerational unemployment and a growing problem with underemployment. Not only are children learning from their parents how to live and survive on welfare, with no impetus to seek gainful employment, but unfortunately they are learning from their grandparents. So this measure will go some way to highlighting the financial benefits of getting out of bed, looking for and gaining gainful employment and breaking that cycle of intergenerational unemployment.
These two programs are fundamentally important to job seekers in my electorate because Tasmania has the highest levels of unemployment in the nation. In the midst of that unfortunate set of statistics, my electorate of Braddon has the worst unemployment levels in the state of Tasmania. Unemployment is the only significant economic indicator that Tasmania tops. How unfortunate is that? At the weekend—and I will come back to this—the people of Tasmania overwhelmingly understood the challenge that is before us and put their faith and their vote in a Will Hodgman-led Liberal government.
Tasmania's unemployment rate is 7.3 per cent, which is 1.3 per cent—so nearly 25 per cent—higher than the national rate of six per cent. Youth unemployment on the west and north-west coast of Tasmania, which was highlighted in the last fortnight or so by the report of the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, is 21 per cent, the worst in the nation. That is something I am very, very concerned about and something that I am actually ashamed of. But it is not surprising because for the last six years the Tasmanian economy has faced the double whammy of an incompetent federal government and a weak minority government in coalition with the industry-hating, jobs-destroying Australian Greens. That is why I went on the record so strongly last week saying that the Tasmanian election, held over the weekend, would be the most important election in a generation. I am pleased to have sitting next to me this evening my colleague from Lyons. Lyons has experienced extraordinary losses of jobs, particularly around the demise of the forest industry. Mr Hutchinson as well as my colleague Mr Nikolic know full well the extreme damage that has been done to our beautiful state. The people have now passed judgement on Labor and the Greens, not once but twice.
This bill is just one of the many measures the coalition is putting forward to cut unemployment in Tasmania and around the country. This is a major challenge and there are many more things that need to be done, such as scrapping the carbon tax, scrapping the mining tax and repealing a billion dollars worth of green and red tape imposed on businesses which we are going to be doing through the repeal day next week.
There is a challenge ahead, there is no doubt about that. Let me go to some of the matters that have been raised by previous speakers. I notice that a bit of attention has been drawn to trade training centres, so let's just put the record straight. The problem with the Labor Party is they always think they know best. Well, a little bit of humility would not go astray because on this side of the House we do not always think we know best. That is why we talk and we consult with industry, with small business, with medium business and with big business to find out what the challenges are and where government policy is failing to meet the needs. When it comes to trade training centres we have not abandoned that scheme at all, but we will be rebadging them as trade skill centres. But the important point about these educational facilities is that they are going to be designed more to increase industry and school cooperation. We are going to be doing that. We are going to be trying to strengthen the links with industry and our communities and to enhance the governance arrangements to ensure industry has a say about the delivery of qualifications.
The Labor Party must have a tin ear, because for year upon year industry and business have been saying that what is being delivered through government policy has not been meeting their expectations and that we have not seen the delivery of qualifications that suit small business and industry. We are going to improve the training delivery so that it benefits the schools, the students and industry—for example, by working with local training organisations, business and industry to identify opportunities for apprenticeships or traineeships that will allow students to undertake their senior secondary school studies while doing an apprenticeship or traineeship. We are also looking to have better student support services—for example, career advice, mentoring and student counselling services to help students do well at their studies and to more successfully make the move from school to the workforce.
Contrary to the two previous speakers, we are not abandoning in any way, shape or form the support that will be provided to our young people to build the whole trade sector in this country. It is important for us to put some of the truths on the table. We are not sitting on our hands. Everybody with any degree of common sense would see that for six years this country went backwards at a rate of knots. This government does not intend for one moment to sit on its hands while we watch the economy get trashed. We will not. The job is ahead and we will continue to do what has to be done to get this country, this economy and our communities back on track.
Labor claims to be the friend of the worker. Well, I am not so sure about that. They were in office for six years, which by comparison to the Hawke-Keating years and the Howard-Costello years was not that long—thank goodness for that! But over that time, we saw employment for the young people of Australia rise from 9.9 per cent to 12.7 per cent. An additional 55,000 young Australians were unemployed after six years of a Labor government. So I do not think it is any good form at all to be spoken down to by those opposite. They had six years to get this economy back on track and what did they do? They trashed it!
They also said that we are a government of no action. They talk about, 'Where are the jobs; where is the plan for jobs?'. Well, what about the East West Link? Let's talk about infrastructure. What about the 3,200 jobs that will be provided through construction? What about the 10,000 jobs that will be on board with the WestConnex? What about the 8,600 jobs with the Pacific Highway upgrade? And the 3,500 coal jobs in Victoria—the list goes on and on.
There is confidence being restored to this nation. That confidence is being restored on the back of a majority government, a government with a plan, a government with a commitment to rebuild this economy, to get our spending under control and to get the budget back into the black as soon as we possibly can. But they have left us with a huge mess to clean up, and they sit there each and every day as though nothing has gone wrong at all. I do not know how they sleep at night.
Let me return to my own electorate and my own state. As I said earlier, there is much challenge ahead of us. But on Saturday just gone, the great news is that the people of Tasmania saw fit to put their confidence in a majority Liberal government led by Will Hodgman. After 16 years of Labor, the last four years in bed with the Greens to the point where they put two Greens in cabinet, our state has been trashed, our forestry industry has been wrecked, health outcomes are the worst in the country, educational outcomes are the worst in the country and infrastructure spending is the least in the country. Thank goodness a majority government has been restored in Tasmania.
I will take a few moments to talk about the character of the new premier of Tasmania. Will Hodgman is a good man. He has shown persistence, he has shown humility, he has shown a real desire to consult and he has a desire to really understand the needs of our community. He has been rewarded for those attributes on Saturday, with an overwhelming victory in the state of Tasmania—just like in the national capital—to lead and to rebuild the economy of Tasmania.
This bill today is about trying to get people back into employment—and man, do we need that in Tasmania! I know the scene well. As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, I spent eight years in the Tasmanian parliament and I know the challenges that are being faced by our communities. They have woken today, the first working business day of a new future—a brighter picture future. I say to the people of Tasmania from this honoured place where I stand that it is time to put shoulder to shoulder and to work together with the new government to get the Tasmanian economy back on track. It will be tough. There will be tough decisions, as Will has said right through the campaign, that will have to be undertaken. There will be rebuilding to be done and not everybody will like every decision, but if we are to rebuild a future for our children and our children's children the time has come. We cannot wait any longer to get the Tasmanian economy back on track. We have to do whatever it takes, otherwise we will leave a legacy that will bring us nothing less than shame, shame, shame.
I say with a great deal of passion tonight that I wish Will and the new Liberal team all the very best as they rebuild the Tasmanian economy and as they restore confidence in our great state. I say to those people who may get a chance to listen to or read this: if you are in business, or an investor in Australia, think again and give Tasmania reconsideration. We deserve it. There is stability now and there is a brighter future.
It is pleasing to see a bill before the House in relation to youth unemployment, even though the measures in this Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 are a mere fraction of what needs to be done. The relocation allowance and the incentive to stay in work are positive, but they just do not go to the root causes of youth unemployment. The Brotherhood of St Laurence has launched a campaign in relation to youth unemployment. The My Chance, Our Future campaign is aimed at drawing attention to youth unemployment. Last month the brotherhood, as part of that campaign, published its Australian youth unemployment snapshot. The snapshot draws on ABS data to demonstrate the need to take action to reduce unemployment among people 24 and younger.
Queensland's figures are distressing. Three of the brotherhood's 10 hotspots for youth unemployment are in Queensland: Wide Bay with 17.6 per cent youth unemployment; Moreton Bay north, the area around Redcliffe, with 18.1 per cent youth unemployment; and Cairns with 20.5 per cent youth unemployment. In inner-city Brisbane youth unemployment is also unacceptably high. The Parliamentary Library information shows that it was at 11.1 per cent as at December 2013. Since the election of the LNP state government in 2012, unemployment has been on the rise in Queensland. When the LNP were elected in March 2012 unemployment was 5.5 per cent seasonally adjusted. In February 2014 it was 6.2 per cent seasonally adjusted. In January this year Jobs Australia observed:
Despite Australia’s relatively healthy economy, young people continue to experience high levels of unemployment. The national unemployment rate was 5.8% in November 2013, yet the unemployment rate of teenagers was 16.5% and for youth aged 15-24 it was 12.4%.
Young people were hit harder by the Global Financial Crisis … than older people, and its impact lingers. At the height of the GFC in 2008-09 the unemployment rate for 15-24 year olds rose by around four percentage points, while for teenagers it rose by six points. This compared with an overall rise in the national unemployment rate of around two points.
Jobs Australia specifically noted that teenage and youth unemployment rates indicate a need to support young people to make the successful transition from school to employment. It also noted that the casualisation of the workforce has meant that when young people do get a job it is more likely to be part time or casual.
Jobs Australia and the brotherhood have identified the need to support young people's transition to work through measures such as meaningful work experience, improving employability and creating opportunities for young people within communities. The brotherhood has noted the improvements in education attainment that have been made and has said that the next step in fighting youth unemployment is to bolster programs that build work readiness among Australian youth. It went on to state that what is needed is a service that has these key elements—and I will cite the report because I think it is really important to talk about what is actually needed to address youth unemployment in this country. The first element the report mentions is employability skills. The report states:
Employers have identified that young job seekers are often not job-ready. They need employees who are reliable, willing to learn and able to fit into the workplace. A Youth Transitions Service—
which the brotherhood is advocating for—
would focus on building ‘employability’ skills such as punctuality, the ability to work in a team and having a practical understanding of workplace expectations—all of which are essential for successfully moving into work.
Another element that is called for is work experience. The report states:
Access to real workplace experience is critical to building work readiness. A Youth Transitions Service would connect young people to real-life opportunities to get a taste of varied workplace environments and obtain meaningful work experience and volunteering placements. This would enable young people to try out different jobs, build their personal networks and mentors and learn about the world of work and the available options.
Another element is coaching. The report states:
Intensive and sustained coaching would assist a young person identify their strengths and aspirations to make sure they are on the pathway to secure their first job. Parents also have a critical role to play. A Youth Transitions Service should also focus on directly engaging with parents to support their children’s transition to work.
The brotherhood also raised the elements of vocational guidance and rapid action. The report states that a youth transitions service could proactively scan the environment to find out where there are disengaged young people and get in touch with them. Connecting with local employers is obviously an important step to take to find out how best to address youth unemployment through finding the skills that are needed and to build links and connections. In other words, the brotherhood has called for real strategic action to get young people into work, not just fiddling at the edges of payments. This bill is a missed opportunity for the government.
Labor has always stood for jobs. In government Labor worked to address youth unemployment by supporting young people to finish school and get the training and higher education they need for well-paying jobs. Labor improved training, improved engagement and improved employment services for young people. Under Labor the successful Youth Connections Program assisted more than 71,000 young Australians. The great success of that program has been acknowledged. It kept people at school and a number of people who went through that program went through further education, including tertiary education. The member for Rankin addressed that issue in his earlier speech in support of this bill and the proposition before the House.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence snapshot acknowledges the significance of the Youth Connections Program. That program assists young people not fully engaged in education or employment through, as the brotherhood has described it, 'outreach and re-engagement activities, case management and initiatives that build youth service capacity'. Jobs Australia also said about the Youth Connections Program:
The Youth Connections Programme has been successful in preventing and addressing disengagement from education, training and employment and helping young people achieve long term outcomes. The strengths of Youth Connections include flexibility, capacity to provide intensive and holistic support, and outreach with the most disengaged.
The Youth Connections Program has received acclaim from bodies with an interest in dealing with the youth unemployment problem. In fact, the brotherhood have described this as a youth unemployment crisis. That is the scale of the issue we are looking at.
Jobs Australia has recommended that the services provided under Youth Connections continue beyond 2014. We know that presently there is no guarantee of funding continuing beyond 2014. In fact, it has been revealed that there is no money allocated for the program to continue beyond 2014. If the government are considering defunding this program, which unfortunately seems very likely, with a view to making savings, I caution them to be very wary of false economies. In other words, are there really net savings to be made from discontinuing this program or are we being penny-wise and pound-foolish by failing to provide a program that has a track record of success in re-engaging young people? It is clear from the statistics that there is a youth unemployment problem in this nation. We must act to assist young people to get into work. If the government is considering de-funding this program, I would caution it to be wary of false economies. In government, Labor made a record investment in skills and training for smarter jobs and a stronger nation. In total, the former Labor government invested over $19 billion in skills funding between 2008-09 and 2012-13. This was a 77 per cent increase compared to the former Howard government investment.
The former Labor government was delivering a training guarantee, including rolling out a national entitlement to a publicly funded minimum of certificate level III qualification, a guaranteed training place for all Australians. It was giving all Australians access to over $90,000 worth of training to get a diploma or an advanced diploma through HECS style loans of the VET FEE-HELP program introduced in 2009. It was opening up access to university education by uncapping the number of places universities offer, meaning no-one who wanted to go to university would miss out because of funding caps.
During the federal election campaign, Labor announced changes to job services and training to give workers losing their jobs a Jobs, Training and Apprenticeships Guarantee. This would have ensured they would receive immediate help finding work and learning the skills needed by local employers. It would have given business a greater say in the type of training provided to jobseekers, ensuring taxpayer-funded employment services were relevant to businesses' needs by consulting with local businesses. Under that guarantee, workers were to receive employment services within two business days of losing their job, and we know that early intervention is really important.
Labor's reforms were aimed at building on the existing training guarantee by building better links between employment service providers, training providers and local employers. Labor had announced Jobs and Training Boards aimed at connecting local businesses, employment services and training providers to make sure that training services matched business needs. Of course, Labor's most significant achievement in government when it comes to jobs was careful and successful stewardship of our economy, which shielded Australian working families from the worst effects of the global financial crisis.
As Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer said of the former Labor government's legacy:
Unemployment remained low under Labor until the financial crisis hit hard, but … it rose much less and began falling more quickly again than elsewhere due to Labor’s stimulus packages and the RBA’s emergency rate cuts.
That remains Labor’s biggest triumph: keeping hundreds of thousands of people out of unemployment, with all the attendant budgetary and social costs (and the longer-term impact on participation and mobility). And more than 900,000 jobs created in the past five years has also been a solid achievement.
In contrast, the Liberal-National government has failed to support training, and it has failed to support jobs. The Abbott government has already broken Mr Abbott's promise that there would be no cuts to education, by cutting $1 billion from training, cancelling 650 future Trades Training Centres. At the same time as it is reducing Australians' access to vocational training, unbelievably, the Abbott government is opening loopholes to allow greater use of subclass 457 visas. The use of temporary skilled worker visas should not be accompanied by cuts to training. Demand for foreign skilled workers indicates that more investment in training is needed, not less.
When it comes to jobs, the Abbott government's record is dire. Over 60,000 full-time jobs have been lost since the Abbott government took office. We have seen job losses announced at Qantas, 5,000 jobs; at Toyota, 2,500 direct jobs; at Holden, 2,900 direct jobs; at Rio Tinto at the Gove refinery, 1,100 jobs; at Electrolux in Orange, 544 jobs; at Simplot, 110 jobs; at Peabody, more than 200 jobs; at Caterpillar, 200 jobs, and many other indirect jobs. Sadly, we know that this will lead to even more job losses.
And a disturbing theme is arising from this government: blaming workers for their own job losses. We saw it with the attempts to characterise SPC workers' conditions as too generous. We are seeing it now with the attacks on penalty rates. But Australians will not fall for claims that wages are too high. Australians know that, as Matt Cowgill has observed, since 2000, Australian real wages have not kept pace with productivity growth. The labour share of national income has been reducing, and in 2011 reached its lowest point in at least fifty years. Meanwhile, labour productivity has had a period of sustained growth. Last year, Austrade reported on the Conference Board data showing that Australian labour productivity, measured in GDP per hour, grew at an average annual rate of more than one per cent over the 10 years to 2012. This exceeded many major developed economies, including the UK, Germany, Canada, France and Italy.
Instead of a government that blames workers and working conditions, Australians deserve a government that will fight for jobs and support workers and job seekers. While measures to support young people in work are to be welcomed, we still must focus on giving them the skills and experience to get a job in the first place. While Labor supports this legislation and the principle of encouraging young people to find employment, Labor does not want to see these payments to job seekers replacing wage subsidies or support for employers to employ young people, nor do we want it be at the expense of investment in training and higher education for young people.
The Abbott Liberal National government is failing young people. It has done nothing at all about youth unemployment other than to rush this bill into the parliament after youth unemployment figures became the focus of national attention. And the punitive measure in the bill, increasing the non-payment period to 26 weeks, implies that there is a problem with young people leaving jobs without a good reason. This is yet another example of the Liberals and Nationals blaming their failures on the very people who it has failed, young people. Instead of implying that youth unemployment is attributable to young people leaving jobs, the government should act on the recommendations of organisations like Brotherhood of St Laurence and Jobs Australia and provide real support to get young people into work out of school. To transition them from school into work is the key. The measures in this bill will be supported, but as my colleague the member for Rankin said, they barely scratch the surface. This government needs to fight for jobs, and take real action to get young people into work.
I always welcome the opportunity to speak on bills. Obviously, I do not support the amendment. I think the original bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014, is really the issue and really what adds value here. It is always interesting to look back on the recent history of employment in Australia. The opposition makes much of talking about Holden, Toyota and Qantas, to the exclusion of Mitsubishi—forgotten—and Ford—also forgotten. It is very easy to point the finger at us with more recent situations and to completely neglect or whitewash away the past—even what happened at Gove.
For years we have been talking in this place, on our side anyway, about the additional costs that have come from the opposition. The Labor Party's approach to high-emission industries and, thanks to the carbon tax, their determination by the other side to close down the aluminium industry in this country is effectively being achieved. They shed crocodile tears for the jobs lost in Gove, when that exact industry was almost specifically targeted by the carbon tax and was highlighted as an industry at risk. Mission accomplished Labor Party! Pat yourselves on the back. That is what you did when you got the carbon tax through. Job losses have come from that and real people have been impacted. This is the reality.
For Qantas, $106 million: yes, I bet that would be really good for the company's future. Just whack that sort of money on, all to the exclusion of the impact on climate. Anyone who has been to China, who has been on the streets of those cities, would know where so much CO2 is coming from. So many Australian jobs have been lost as result of industry being undermined by the Labor Party's carbon tax, yet other places like China more than account for any savings. I am not sure whether there has been a reduction of CO2 due to this carbon tax. There have been jobs lost, there is no doubt about that, but not so much on the climate side of things. This is what comes from the actions of the other side.
I heard the last speaker, the member for Griffith, talking about youth unemployment. I recall, back in 2007, when there was a change in government, the youth unemployment was 9.9 per cent—that is tragic, there is no doubt about that. Of course, under Labor it went up to 12.7 per cent—again we do not hear too much about that. That is not exactly the enviablerecord they talk about on the other side. An additional 55,000 young Australians were unemployed after six years of Labor. In the last month, 80,000 extra full-time jobs that have been created in this country. Unfortunately, balanced against that was a loss of part-time jobs.
In the hospitality sector, shops do not want to open on Sundays. In the shopping centres in Perth and in my area at Kingsway shopping centre, many shops do not open on Sunday because they cannot afford to. There is a reason for that. Many jobs have gone because of the cost of opening—$6 or $7 for a cup of coffee to cover the new wages awards brought in by the other side—that is great! Jobs lost, but whatever you do, don't talk about penalty rates. Blow the jobs: that is view of the Labor, and do not talk about penalty rates.
I should really proceed to more positive points. This bill is a lot more positive than the past six years have been. Whenever I speak at a citizenship ceremony, I always say that some people call this country 'the lucky country'. I call it a country where there is opportunity, where, if you want to make the most of your education, then work hard and achieve your best and you can be successful. If you have a good attitude and work hard at your job, you can maximise your opportunities. There are places in the world where your family will either give you a better chance of getting a good job or undermine your chances of a good job or education. There are places in the world where your religion will do the same thing—it either works for you or it works against you. Thank god this is not a country where cultural issues get in the way of success. In this country, if people work hard, it is does not matter about their background. In this country, people's destiny is in the palm of our hand and if they work hard, they will succeed. Thank god this is a country like that.
Look around: the numbers of people who have come here from other countries is an endorsement of these opportunities. The reason so many people want to come here is that this great country is a land of opportunity. It is also something of a criticism of the places people have come from. I know there are a lot of New Zealanders in this country. We see the All Blacks jersey pulled out so often in the rugby season, but if New Zealand were such a great place, they would still be living there.
Of course, there is a reason for us to be positive. In the last month almost 50,000 net jobs were created and the participation rate rose to 64.8 per cent. The unemployment rate was not good but it held steady at six per cent rather than going to 6.25 per cent as the previous government had predicted. Although there was a reduction in part-time jobs, 80,000 new full-time jobs were created. So, there is a lot to be positive about. I see confidence returning in WA, particularly. More jobs are being advertised again. The Roy Hill project, owned mainly by the often maligned Gina Rinehart, is gearing up and that is great news for Western Australia. Labor and the Greens want to continue to undermine Western Australia's future with the mining tax and the carbon tax. As everyone knows, a good result at the 5 April Senate election will see three Liberal senators able to assist the men, women and children of Western Australia to a better future.
In Cowan, I am encouraged by an increase in job advertisements on the streets and in the businesses of the light industrial suburbs of Malaga, Gnangara and Wangara. Just the other day I saw Centurion Garage Doors, a great manufacturer in Cowan, advertising for installers on Hartman Drive—this is very encouraging. In Cowan, the unemployment rate is 4.5 per cent, which is lower than the Western Australian rate of 5.9 per cent. Despite these figures being better than many other electorates and states I know that they could be better and that is why I support this bill.
Specifically on this bill, the first point I would like to note is that, like any good government, if you say it before an election then you must do it after the election. This is a point of difference between us and our predecessors. This bill is essentially about bringing into effect two election commitments—the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program—both of which will come into effect from 1 July 2014. It is important to keep in mind that jobs are created through economic activity and prosperity. The role of government is to facilitate the circumstances of that prosperity and, where possible, pull the hurdles out of the way. Our key policies in achieving this include getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax, and getting rid of excessive red tape. For individual Australians who are out of work, getting a job is vitally important and this government is determined to assist them. For the youth and those wishing to get a job regardless of its location this bill and this government are here to help. We are determined to combat the damaging effects of unemployment on people, because we know that being out of work for an extended period can cause harm by reducing a person's skills, confidence and sense of pride. Without self-confidence, a person is already becoming uncompetitive and the longer a person is unemployed the greater the harm taking place.
The first element of this bill is our proposal of a Job Commitment Bonus. This new payment will be available to young Australians aged 18-30 who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, who are already in receipt of a Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance, and who go on to get and hold down a job. The payment is split into two parts. To achieve the first bonus, worth $2,500, an eligible young job seeker must remain in employment and off income support for 12 months. The second part is worth $4,000 and is paid when the person remains in employment and off income support for an additional 12 months. That comes to 24 months in total. This is a much welcomed initiative because it targets the building of a better jobs culture—a culture, as the minister said, of commitment to the world of work rather than the world of welfare. This is what the Job Commitment Bonus is about—to achieve its objectives it will reward those young Australians who demonstrate a dedication to work.
I also greatly support the second significant initiative of this bill, being the acknowledgement that job seekers face costs and sometimes those costs, such as moving, can be significant and can stop a person taking up a job. To combat this problem, the government, through this legislation, will introduce the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program to provide funding to eligible job seekers to meet the costs of moving to take up a job. Eligible job seekers can access up to $6,000 for relocation to a regional area to take up a job. Sometimes it works the other way—people move to a metropolitan area from the regions—and, in this case, $3,000 can be made available. Even relocation from higher unemployment metropolitan areas to another metropolitan area can attract $3,000. Where a family with dependent children is moving, up to an extra $3,000 can also be granted in recognition of the additional costs for a family to move.
There are a number of great benefits generated through this bill. These programs are measures designed to support job seekers, but there has to be a commitment on the part of those taking up the support of the government and taxpayers; there has to be a commitment by those people who want to access this money. It is therefore appropriate that, if the person does not remain in the job for at least six months, there should be a penalty in the form of a 26-week non-payment period before they can access unemployment benefits again in the absence of a reasonable excuse for leaving the employment. This bill will provide effective support to job seekers whilst also holding them to account for that support. The great value in these measures is that this acts as a partnership in many ways—the government and the taxpayers give the hand up and the unemployed person commits to moving and staying in work. The end result is greater participation which helps build economic prosperity. This is good for the individual, good for the business doing the employing, and good for the government and the taxpayers who do not have to pay unemployment payments.
At the start I spoke about this country being the land of opportunity, and it is through this bill and these measures that we, the government, can enshrine these opportunities. We will be there for the job seekers of our nation to ensure that opportunities are not out of reach due to costs of relocation and to lock in a positive culture of participation, not unproductive entitlement. This bill is about hope, reward and opportunity for those who may feel employment is out of reach, and it is about an acknowledgement that no lifetime should be wasted because of a culture of low expectations and desperation due to welfare dependency.
There is little doubt, and the people know it, that the coalition inherited an economy in transition. The lives of Australians have been held back by $123 billion in projected deficits and, without change, the economy is heading towards being $667 billion in debt. The good news is that, through these initiatives, we can increase productivity, grow the economy, reduce debt and get people into jobs and off unemployment benefits. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the opposition to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. It is timely that we are having a discussion about employment participation. Last Thursday, unemployment figures showed that a further 10,000 Australians had lost their job last month and that there are now over 742,000 Australians out of work. The aggregate hours worked fell nearly one per cent, down 14 million hours. In my home state of Victoria, the participation rate fell from 64.8 per cent to 64.5 per cent, and our unemployment rate, at 6.4 per cent, is the worst since January 2002. In Broadmeadows, just north of my electorate, unemployment has risen by 25 per cent in the past six months, from 10.3 per cent to 12.8 per cent. Unemployment across Glenroy, Hadfield and Fawkner in my electorate is of particular concern. It now sits at 6.9 per cent, which is higher than the national unemployment rate of six per cent and higher than the Victorian unemployment rate. This higher than average unemployment rate will not be helped by the loss of Ford and other manufacturers associated with that company. Qantas job losses will also affect this community because of its traditional employment links with Tullamarine Airport.
Against this background, the decision by the federal government to allow employers to bring in unlimited numbers of foreign workers is a lunatic move, which will cost Australian jobs and bring back the rorts which took place before that loophole was closed. We already have over one million temporary entrants in Australia who have work rights. It is plain crazy to increase the 457 visa program. This program's application is already way too high. In 2009-10, there were 68,000 457 visas granted. Last year the figure had risen to over 126,000 temporary migrant worker visas. If you allow employers to bring in as many 457 workers as they like once a sponsorship is approved, this figure will continue to skyrocket. The workers concerned are prepared to work for less than Australian workers, which suits employers, but the 457 visa program is a dagger at the heart of Australian workers, who end up working for less than decent wages and conditions, or languishing indefinitely without any work at all.
We need to cap and reduce the temporary migrant worker programs and give job opportunities and job security to young Australians. The temporary and permanent migrant worker programs are a recipe for more young Australians to be out of work, with all the negative consequences that unemployment has in relation to mental health, drugs, crime and social harmony. I find it remarkable that almost 750 occupations have so few Australian workers available that they are eligible for the 457 visa program: caravan park managers, grape growers, cooks, IT workers—you name it; it is claimed we are short of workers in the field. It is just not so.
The ABC reporter Matt Peacock produced a very insightful piece of reporting on 6 March about the ripping off of thousands of abattoir workers in Australia on working holiday, or 417, visas. At the Scone meatworks in the New South Wales Upper Hunter Valley, serious concerns have emerged about excessive hours of work, gross underpayments of pay and entitlements, and mistreatment of employees, including sexual harassment. Grant Courtney from the Meat Workers Union Newcastle and Northern Branch says that some of the international workers—often Taiwanese backpackers—are not even being paid half the Australian minimum wage. Investigations also revealed backpackers being encouraged not to pay tax by using ABN numbers. It is unacceptable that this can go on.
A lot of the abuse of temporary workers occurs through labour hire companies. In the meatworkers example, the Scone site is owned by Primo Australia, who used the labour hire company Scottwell International. Scottwell, in turn, recruited Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean employees to work in abattoirs across Australia. Matt Peacock reported that it has 19 different abattoirs across three states employing more than 1,100 people. Grant Courtney, from the meat workers union, says that these subcontracting arrangements, and the use of labour agencies, should not happen. I agree with him. It is a recipe for the kinds of abuses that Matt Peacock's report identified. The workers who come to meatworks should be directly employed by the company. They should be paid Australian wages and conditions, and they should pay Australian taxes. If the work runs out, they can be let go, the same as other workers are let go.
Furthermore, the Victorian Liberal government has written to the Commonwealth seeking to have the population threshold for regional migration agreements lifted to allow—of all places—Geelong to be included. The workers at Ford, Alcoa and other industries in Geelong who now stand to lose their jobs are entitled to a fair crack at the jobs that will become available in future in that region, without having to face ferocious competition for entry-level, low-wage jobs from foreign workers who are willing to work for much less.
The bill before the House is called Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. I am all in favour of increased employment participation, but we now have a workforce participation rate lower than it has been for years. In my home state of Victoria, participation is down from 64.8 per cent to 64.5 per cent, with an unemployment rate as bad as anything since January 2002. Unemployment in Broadmeadows has jumped 25 per cent in the six months of the Abbott government. So, why on earth does the government want to increase the temporary migrant worker program instead of giving the unemployed people of Broadmeadows a go? The December quarter figures showed that unemployment in the city of Moreland, which is in the heart of my electorate, has increased by over 25 per cent in just 12 months. Local unemployment climbed from 4.1 per cent in December 2012 to 5.6 per cent in December 2013. In Moreland, there are now 1,249 extra people unemployed compared with 12 months ago. A total of 4,675 local people are now out of work. This increase has been across the board: Brunswick, up from 3.6 per cent to 5 per cent; Coburg, up from 3.7 per cent to 5 per cent; and the north of Moreland, up from 5.1 per cent to 6.9 per cent. As I said earlier, this figure of 6.9 per cent—covering Glenroy, Hadfield and Fawkner—is of particular concern, being higher than the national unemployment rate and higher than the Victorian unemployment rate.
I am dismayed that the federal and state governments have twiddled their thumbs as Holden, Toyota, Alcoa and Qantas have announced the sacking of thousands of workers. This will have adverse effects on my electorate and on Victorians more broadly. This government's disdain for manufacturing in general, motor vehicle manufacturing in particular, makes it not only an anti-South Australian government—on the weekend, many South Australians made it clear that they have worked that out—but also an anti-Victorian government.
Youth unemployment is a big issue for Australia and for young Australians. According to a recent report by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, youth unemployment has reached a crisis point. The organisation says the figures show an average of 12.4 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 were out of work in the year to January. It says that figure has topped 20 per cent in some parts of the country, including Cairns in Far North Queensland, west and north-west Tasmania and northern Adelaide. In the Hume region, north of my electorate, the rate has hit 17.5 per cent. The executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Tony Nicholson, has—correctly in my view—described the result as a disaster. He said:
What it means for all these young people is that they're at risk of never being able to get a foothold in the world of work.
And in our modern economy that means that they're really being sentenced to a lifetime of poverty.
I think he is absolutely right. In many respects, we are failing the younger generation in terms of housing affordability and job security. We are letting them down. I am very concerned about the loss of jobs since the new government came to office. The government has failed to support jobs. I am concerned that they have few or no plans to deal with the increased level of unemployment. We have seen Qantas announce 5,000 job losses; 2,500 direct jobs at Toyota; 2,900 direct jobs at Holden; 1,100 jobs at Rio Tinto at the Gove refinery; 544 jobs at Electrolux in Orange; 110 jobs at Simplot; more than 200 jobs at Peabody; 200 jobs at Caterpillar; and many other indirect jobs. Sadly, we all know that these sorts of job losses have knock-on consequences and lead to even more job losses.
Australians deserve a government that will fight for jobs and support workers and job seekers. While measures to support young people in work are to be welcomed—and we do welcome them—we must focus on giving young people the skills and experience to get a job in the first place. Tony Nicholson has called on the federal government to invest in a national strategy to turn things around. He said:
Overwhelmingly we know that these young people need advice about their career paths, they need opportunities to gain basic skills, they need mentoring, but over and above all that, what they need is an opportunity to gain work experience in a real work place with a real employer.
In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school and get the training and higher education they need for well-paying jobs. We believe in a strong public provider that underpins a high-quality VET system, which is why we support TAFE. Labor improved training and employment services for young people. Governments cannot expect young people to gain well-paid jobs without providing education, training and support. Governments cannot expect young people to easily find work with unemployment on the increase in the way that I have outlined to the House.
I think we should be looking to the Scandinavian models for guidance. There, an emphasis is placed on the long term and policies to mitigate the harsher effects of capitalism are in place. Denmark, for example, has a system of 'flexicurity', which makes it easier for employers to sack people but provides support and training for the unemployed.
An active labour market policy in Nordic countries helps improve qualifications among the unemployed through courses and education and also encourages the unemployed to actively focus on job seeking. The social security net is not passive in the sense that people may choose freely between working or not; rather, it provides a secure income as long as the demand for active participation in the labour market is met. Participation in the labour market is also supported by welfare schemes such as child care. An extensive childcare system has a direct welfare effect for families and helps to socialise children. It also helps to ensure gender equality in terms of opportunities to participate in the labour market.
Regrettably, this government obsessively believes in self-correcting free markets and that workers who have lost their jobs can move seamlessly into other work. At the same time, they disparage welfare and talk up the various myths of neo-liberal economic doctrine. However, the welfare state in Nordic countries is considered to be a strength when it comes to economic development. Not only does the welfare state benefit the whole population but also it has a positive effect on the economy.
The public sector and welfare services have helped these countries develop a highly skilled workforce and a high level of employment. Norway, for example, has 3.3 per cent unemployment, where we have six per cent unemployment. This, combined with a stable civil society, a strong democratic tradition and an effective regulatory framework has led to the emergence in the region of extensive social capital, which is one of the main pillars of the Nordic economies.
I support the opposition's amendment. I urge the government to get fair dinkum about boosting the labour force participation rate. To do this, it needs to cut back its migrant worker programs. The smaller economies of Northern Europe, which have not been trying to boost population growth with high migration programs, have most successfully had high labour force participation rates. I urge the government to support Australian jobs and Australian young people, who I fear are being done a real disservice by the policies that we are pursuing now. I commend the amendment to the House.
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. This government believes that the best form of welfare is work and that, where people are able to work, they should be encouraged and supported to do so. This bill will provide assistance to enable the long-term unemployed, particularly young job seekers, to find and keep a job. The bill introduces two measures that will achieve these objectives: the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. This government is determined to prevent young job seekers falling into long-term welfare dependency, and we are eager to reward positive pro-work behaviours.
The Job Commitment Bonus will be available to young Australians aged 18 to 30 who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. If they are able to get and keep a job for 12 months or more, regardless of whether they receive Newstart allowance or youth allowance, they will be eligible for payment under the scheme. The Job Commitment Bonus will make available two payments: $2,500 can be received when an eligible young job seeker remains in employment and off income support for 12 months and a further $4,000 will be available after the job seeker remains in employment and off income support for an additional 12 months. The Job Commitment Bonus will reward young Australians who successfully break the cycle of welfare and demonstrate a strong and ongoing commitment to work.
This bill also introduces the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job Program. This program provides financial support to job seekers who have been receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance or parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months in order to relocate to take up employment or an apprenticeship. The majority of long-term unemployed people do not choose or want to be unemployed. Most long-term unemployed people are eager to break into the job market and secure meaningful employment, but, through no fault of their own, find themselves in an environment where there are simply not enough jobs available. This government believes that in these circumstances we should play an active and responsible role, encouraging job seekers to relocate to regions where there is available employment. The result of doing this is twofold. Firstly, we are able to better match job seekers with available jobs, breaking the cycle of welfare dependency. Secondly, we are reducing the pressures on regions with high unemployment whilst increasing the workforce in areas where there is a clearly identified demand for work.
The Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job Program will make available up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a regional area to take up a job and up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area from a regional area to take up a job. This payment will also be available to eligible job seekers who relocate from a metropolitan area with a higher unemployment rate to one with a lower unemployment rate to take up a job. In addition to these amounts, families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000, in recognition of the extra costs associated with relocating the family. These measures will offer real assistance to long-term unemployed people who relocate to take up work. Given the significant investment on behalf of the government, it is appropriate that we have strong guidelines in place to ensure that those who receive assistance to relocate to take up a job stay in that job rather than return to welfare. This bill will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so that participants who leave employment without a reasonable excuse within six months of receiving a relocation payment will incur a 26-week non-payment period before becoming eligible to receive unemployment benefits again.
This government understands that there is a principal need to support and to encourage young Australians into long-term, viable employment. It was recently reported in The Australian that the number of people on benefits has reached a 15-year high with 840,000 people now receiving either Newstart allowance or youth allowance, representing an increase of 44,000 people against last year's figures. Given the former government's poor economic management, which resulted in an additional 200,000 more people in unemployment lines, it is not surprising that young Australians are struggling to secure meaningful employment. Finding yourself unemployed carries both economic and social impacts. It affects people's personal and professional lives. The impact of unemployment extends beyond the financial costs of welfare payments. It can also lead to a loss of one's pride, reduced self-esteem and confidence. It erodes a person's skill set, making the task of securing employment even more difficult in the long term. Failing to break the cycle of unemployment can contribute to an unhealthy and unsustainable dependence on welfare.
In addressing these issues, the government needs to pursue a range of measures in order to achieve the desired results of lower unemployment and of greater workforce participation. But first and foremost Australia needs a strong and prosperous economy that supports sustainable business. This is why the government will repeal the carbon tax and remove $1 billion worth of red and green tape per year, making business more productive, more competitive and placing it into a stronger position to generate job growth. It is business, not government, that creates jobs. This government is committed to establishing the right environment for business to thrive.
We are also committed to building a bigger and stronger national workforce in order to meet future economic and social demands. We will achieve this through programs such as the Trade Support Loans, to encourage the take-up of traineeships and apprenticeships, the reintroduction of a purposeful Work for the Dole program and the measures introduced in this bill. It is abundantly clear that long-term unemployed job seekers need a hand up not a handout.
The reality is that after six years of Labor government it is now more difficult for people to find work. When Labor took office in 2007, the unemployment rate across Australia was 4.3 per cent, with the average unemployment rate over the final year of the Howard government being 4.45 per cent. When Labor left office last year, the unemployment rate had climbed to 5.8 per cent, with the unemployment rate over the final years of the Gillard-Rudd government averaging 5.5 per cent—an entire percentage point higher than the comparable period under the Howard government. Couple this with a retraction of the workforce participation rate and it should come as no surprise that there are an additional 200,000 people queuing in unemployment lines. These numbers show the difficulties facing job seekers and illustrate the need for programs that will lead people off welfare and into employment.
The measures outlined in this bill are geared towards addressing what is, perhaps, an even more concerning trend across Australia—that is, the alarmingly high rate of unemployment amongst our youth. It was reported last month that youth unemployment in Australia has reached a crisis point with figures released by the Brotherhood of St Laurence showing that 12.4 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 were out of work. I recently had the opportunity to meet with the Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Mr Tony Nicholson, to discuss my local priorities of lifting school retention rates and the youth unemployment rate in Dobell. As noted by the member for Wills, Mr Nicholson described the current national youth unemployment rate, saying:
What it means for all these young people is that they're at risk of never being able to get a foothold in the world of work.
And in our modern economy that means that they're really being sentenced to a lifetime of poverty.
As the mother of two young men, I am all too aware of the challenges facing young job seekers in my electorate of Dobell. Across the Central Coast we see a daily exodus of over 30,000 people travelling to Sydney, Newcastle, the Hunter or other areas for work, often spending four hours doing the daily commute. The volume of people commuting for employment means valuable time is spent in motor vehicles and on trains rather than with families. With our local unemployment rate of 6.88 per cent—which sits well above the national average—our mature workers are not exempt from the struggles of unemployment, so it is not hard to see why our youngest job seekers struggle to break into the labour market.
For job seekers on the Central Coast aged between 15 and 19 years, the average youth unemployment rate for the period 2012-13 was 16 per cent, with a high of 24.6 per cent in the month of February. Of equal concern is that the number of 15- to 19-year-olds participating in the workforce has fallen from 67.3 per cent in 2008-09 to 60.7 per cent in 2012-13. During this period the rate fell as low as 50 per cent. This means that across the Central Coast the percentage of young people in employment has declined by seven per cent. In regional areas such as the Central Coast, this can be a major contributing factor in the heightening of welfare dependence—reinforcing the need for more jobs and the need to increase the number of people in the workforce so that we can meet the economic and social challenges of today and tomorrow. This bill offers real incentives to bring people out of welfare dependency and into rewarding employment. In Dobell we have 5,314 recipients of the Newstart allowance, and 70 per cent of this number have been receiving the allowance for a period of more than 12 months.
This bill implements measures to reduce the long-term unemployment rate of people aged 18 to 30 years. In Dobell, 1,190 recipients of the Newstart allowance fall into this age category, with 64 per cent having received the allowance for a period of more than 12 months. Dobell is a great example of what this bill means to many young job seekers, with its measures having the ability to encourage around 750 people off welfare and into meaningful and rewarding employment.
We have heard those opposite speak of the success of the Youth Connections program, and no-one would dispute its success in some regions. But let's be clear at the outset: it was Labor that provided no new funding beyond the current year for Youth Connections. Unlike Labor, we are committed to meaningful training that leads to a job or improved productivity in the workplace—not training for training's sake. This government is committed to restoring hope, reward and opportunity to the people of Australia. With a stronger economy and responsible assistance to the long-term unemployed, we will achieve fewer people on welfare and more people in meaningful jobs. This bill will encourage more people to take up work and reward them for staying in meaningful employment and off welfare. I commend this bill to the House.
I am pleased to be participating in the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014, particularly as it focuses on how we can create opportunities for young people to get off benefits and find their way into jobs. We all know that the most important thing we can do to ensure that a young person does not suffer a life of long periods of unemployment is to ensure that they finish school, because there is a very stubborn correlation between the completion of high school and long-term unemployment. So the first thing we need to do to ensure that young people find their way into work is to ensure that they get a decent education, and that is why investing in our school system is so important.
The second thing you can do is to ensure that we are working with, and not against, the economic cycle to ensure that the government withdraws when the economy is growing and that we provide the right sorts of stimulus to the economy when it is slowing down, to keep businesses alive, to keeps jobs growing and to ensure that young people leaving school have the opportunity that we did when we left school—to find a job.
The bill before the House creates some incentives to get a job and to keep a job through two measures. The bill introduces the job commitment bonus, which is a tax-free payment of $2,500 for young Australians aged between 18 and 30 who have been receiving either Newstart or the youth allowance for a period of 12 months. They get it if they remain in gainful employment for a further 12-month period. It also allows young Australians to qualify for a further tax-free payment of $4,000 if they remain in gainful employment for another 12 months—that is, a maximum of 24 months in total. So, over two years you have the capacity to receive an incentive payment of $6,500. I know when I was a young person $6,500 probably would have helped me pay off the bills I had accrued before I had got myself into work or would have helped me buy a car to get to and from work or to meet the other expenses of being in employment. So that part of the package is welcomed by those of us on this side of the House.
The second part of the package is about labour force mobility—about encouraging people to move from the place where potential workers are to the place where the jobs are—and that is the relocation assistance to take up a job. It provides financial assistance of $3,000 or $6,000 for long-term unemployed people—that is, job seekers on Newstart, youth allowance or parenting payments who have been there for at least 12 months. The $3,000 payment is for people moving from a regional area to a metropolitan area; the $6,000 is for people moving from a metropolitan area to a regional area. We might cavil about the wisdom of that in some areas. For example, the area we are standing in at the moment is probably defined as a metropolitan area under the legislation; it is an area of very low unemployment by national standards. If somebody were to move here from a nearby regional area with higher unemployment—such as Yass or Goulburn—they probably would not attract the higher payment, although the rent and other costs of living in Canberra are higher. But in the scheme of things, these are small criticisms that should not take away from the overall support that we on this side of the House give to the legislation.
I come from the Illawarra area, where we have the second-highest youth unemployment rate in the state. The member for Parramatta, who is here at the bench with me today, represents an area that also has very high youth unemployment. And we know that we need to do better as a country, and we are two local members committed to ensuring that we create opportunities for our young people so we do not win the gold and silver medals when it comes to high youth unemployment.
I support the bill, and I am sure the member for Parramatta supports the bill, because it is an extension of what Labor was doing when we were in government. In government Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school, to get the training and higher education they needed, as well as the well-paying jobs of the future. As I said at the outset, the best thing we can do to ensure that is invest in our school education system, and our tertiary education system—particularly our TAFE system.
That is why we reformed and rebuilt skills in the training sector, so it was responsive to the skills shortages that exist nationally and regionally. Last year our Move to Work program provided practical and financial assistance for job seekers who were willing to move outside their local area to take up ongoing employment or an apprenticeship. Overall we invested over $2.4 billion, and put industry at the centre of the National Training System. We delivered the skilled workers that employers need, and made sure that the training actually led to jobs at the other end. I will have something to say about that in a moment, when I focus on a number of very successful programs in my own electorate that are at threat of not receiving ongoing funding.
In 2012 there were about 1.9 million students in the public system, up from 1.67 million in 2007—a 13.8 per cent increase in the number of VET students entering training—and that is a good outcome. Some 1.54 million of these VET places were Commonwealth funded, an increase of almost 25 per cent from the 1.24 million in 2007. All of this paints a picture of how, when we were in government, we were committed to training. While this legislation does not go to training, and while it does not go towards supporting people to make them more employable, it is a part of the picture because it is creating incentives.
Our $57.5 million Apprentice Kickstart initiative supported 21,000 building, construction and engineering apprentices by tripling the incentives for the employers in the first year of taking on an apprentice—and made sure skills in the sector were continuing to develop during what was a weaker time in the construction industry. I mention this because it is important that while we are creating incentives for young people to move to a place where they might find work, or to move into an area where they get can and keep a job, it is also important that we work on the incentives for employers to take on an apprentice or trainee and offer them work.
In government Labor increased financial support for families by $4,000, to encourage teenagers to stay in school or TAFE, and we did this through a range of mechanisms. Our initiatives left the incoming coalition government with one of the lowest unemployment rates among major, advanced economies, at 5.7 per cent. That is still too high, and I know the member for Parramatta shares this view, for the reasons I set out earlier, but it is a rate that would be the envy of many countries around the world.
Job creation was a part of the DNA of the Labor government, I do not believe it is a part of the DNA of the current government. Current labour force figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics have confirmed that unemployment remained worryingly high at six per cent in February. Before the election the Prime Minister promised he would create one million jobs in five years—that is around 200,000 jobs a year, and we have not had a very good start. After six months as Prime Minister Mr Abbott should have created around 100,000 jobs to be on target, but the reality is very different. He has created 33,700 jobs, so he is already more than 65,000 jobs behind, with no sign of closing the gap.
In my electorate of Throsby we have one of the highest levels of youth unemployment in New South Wales—at 16.5 percent youth unemployment in the Illawarra is well over the state average of 11.8 per cent, and the national average, which is currently at around 12.5 per cent. These people look to government, look to business and look to community leaders to put in place the programs and policies that will help them find their way into a job—and if they have a job, to ensure that it is a good and secure job, so that they can provide for themselves and their families and their future.
It is not the first time we have had a tough unemployment outlook in our region. However, in the past we saw a Labor government willing to put in place the right series of programs to ensure we had the region's back. Under Labor, vocational education and training systems were much better resourced, and clearly more heavily funded than we are looking at today. While this bill goes some way to addressing the problem of youth unemployment, mere financial incentives are not enough.
I want to talk about the Better Futures program. The government needs to commit to continuing the funding for this program. Ten communities around Australia were identified as communities that had unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment, and unacceptably high levels of another generation of young people who are potentially entering a situation of long-term unemployment. This program seeks to close the gap in social disadvantage for people facing significant barriers to work, and the risk of long-term unemployment, because it is not only a waste of life but it is also a heavy financial burden on the community.
Better Futures works to turn this around by identifying groups of people in 10 local government areas around Australia, and it then engages with the local community to tailor employment programs to deal with specific local circumstances and demand. One of the 10 areas identified was Shellharbour, in my electorate. In fact, I share this Shellharbour with the new member for Gilmore, and I hope that she also will be a supporter of this important program, because this should be beyond party politics. It goes together with the excellent work that has been done by our local employment coordinators, using the resources of their Flexible Funding Pool—another program that could face the chop in just a few weeks time, upon the release of the report of the commission of horrors, the National Commission of Audit.
The intensive and innovative Young at Heart program takes a group of disadvantaged young people, and provides them with training that they need for a Certificate III in Aged Care—plus hours of local work they experience in the aged care sector. We have a similar program run by the community sector, providing retail traineeships for young people. Many of these people have been out work for years and years, and this is the first job they have had in a long time. Not only is it providing them with income but it is providing them with the social connections and the personal relationships that are necessary for them to have a fulfilling life. I am pleased to say that all of the participants that have been engaged in these programs have been guaranteed work in this sector, and have taken up gainful employment in the Illawarra.
My favourite story comes from Michelle, whom I met at the official graduation of the Young at Heart program with her husband and two kids. Michelle had been out of the workforce for nine years, but thanks to Young at Heart Michelle had found her way back into the workforce and into a job that she loves. Another great story came from Candice from Mount Warrigal in my electorate. She decided to enter the program so that she could be a positive role model for her kids and show them how important it is to give back to the community. Candice is now taking a further step and is studying to become a registered nurse. Neither of these stories would have been possible without the intervention—the intensive intervention—of the Better Futures and the Flexible Funding Pool programs of the former government. These two women are just two of about 40 young people in the Illawarra who have so far completed the Young at Heart program and are looking after our older Australians in needy locations throughout the region. This is just one of more than 20 programs run by Better Futures in the Illawarra region, actively combating rising levels of unemployment.
There are two more programs that I could talk about. This is the part of the equation that needs to be considered because incentives to work through the legislation that is being debated before the House today are important—and that is what it enjoys our support. But unless you deal with these other things, we are at risk of leaving another generation behind. I have in mind a program that was funded under the previous government through Better Futures, but the contract was not honoured under the new government. Illawarra Area Child Care, for its Future Education and Care project, was going to be providing flexible childcare arrangements for young mums trying to get into the workforce—single mums in shiftwork. As you and I would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, in shiftwork there is not a lot of child care available for you. We were plugging that gap through the specialised program. Another program being run by WEA Illawarra was providing networking arrangements. It is not what you know but who you know, we are often told. The WEA were ensuring that these people connected with whom you need to know to get a job.
I support the legislation; it is good legislation. But if we overlook and fail to fund these other important programs, like Better Futures and the Flexible Funding Pool that is available through our LEPs, we will not address that scourge of long-term unemployment for our young people. We can do better as a country.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 is an important bill because it is about one of the most important things that we can do as a parliament and as a government, and that is to help people get into work. I want to speak today specifically from the perspective of the portfolio that I am helping the Prime Minister with, and that is from an Indigenous employment perspective.
All members of this chamber would be aware that at the beginning of this year the Prime Minister made the annual Closing the Gap statement to parliament. In that statement he reported against six key indicators of progress. In two of those indicators we were, in fact, ahead of the game. In a few of those indicators we were pretty much exactly where we should be but had not moved a great deal. But in one indicator out of the six that were reported at the start of the year, we, in fact, were going backwards, where the gap was getting larger not narrower. That indicator was in employment. This is particularly disturbing because in some respects it is the most important indicator. We know that if people have a job then most other things tend to take care of themselves. They tend to be able to look after their children better. Your physical and mental health is better. Your housing tends to be better if you have a job. And, of course, having a job gives tremendous dignity and gives tremendous economic empowerment. There is great pride in holding a job and contributing to our broader community. So it was disturbing that the employment gap had, in fact, gone backwards over the last six years and had not significantly improved.
The numbers show that only 46 per cent of Indigenous people of working age are actually in work. What is even more concerning are the remote numbers. When you look at those figures in remote areas, only 30 per cent of Indigenous people of working age are in employment, and only 18 per cent of the 17- to 24-year-olds are in full-time work or training. That is 18 per cent, which is extraordinary. Those people are the future leaders of those communities, but 82 per cent are not in study or in employment today. That is the situation today when you look at those figures—46 per cent overall in work, only 30 per cent in the remote areas and only 18 per cent of the younger generation. When you look at the demographics, you see that about 50 per cent of the Indigenous population of Australia are below the age of 19 years. So the problem today is already very large; it is getting bigger and the demographics show that the proportion of young people entering workforce age is going to get even larger in the years ahead.
We can see when we look at those figures that we simply have to do things differently—and it is getting more urgent every single year for us to do things differently. This indeed is part of the reason why the Prime Minister has made Indigenous employment not just a priority for the Indigenous Affairs portfolio but a priority for the government overall. I raise these matters in this debate because the bill in front of us will assist us in addressing this great national priority. This bill is not Indigenous specific—it covers all Australians—but it will greatly assist Indigenous people who are out of work today and address some of those appalling statistics that I have outlined.
So what will this bill do? In essence, it provides two significant financial incentives for unemployed people to take up jobs and to keep those jobs. Firstly, it provides an incentive to hold a job for two years or more. It does this through what is called the Job Commitment Bonus, which gives $2,500 to an 18- to 30-year-old person who holds down a job for 12 months. Then, if the person holds down the job for a further 12 months, there is a further $4,000 bonus. That is a $6,500 commitment. Secondly, the bill offers incentives for a person to move to where a job is located. It does this through a measure that will give up to $6,000 to those who move to a regional area for a job and up to $3,000 to those who move to a city from a region or from a city with higher unemployment. And it provides an extra $3,000 on top of that first relocation payment for job seekers with kids.
These two measures provide very substantial financial incentives and they will make a difference. I would put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House that the relocation assistance is particularly important for those in remote communities who want to move to a larger economic centre to take up a job. As you would well know, many of the remote communities simply do not have jobs available in their communities today. Often there is terrific work being done by the leaders in those communities to create further opportunities right there in those geographical locations, but frequently there are simply not enough jobs for the young people to go from school immediately into employment.
For those people in remote communities who do want to move to take up a job, there are sometimes significant impediments to do so. There are cultural barriers, there are Indigenous specific barriers; but also, when you analyse it, there is frequently very little financial incentive to get off welfare in a remote community and take up employment in a larger economic centre. This is particularly the case when you look at the whole package of economic incentives, including housing. Take, for example, a couple who might have a few children and who are currently unemployed in their remote community. Should they want to move even temporarily to take up a job in a larger economic centre, yes their wage would be slightly higher but, in the process, they would lose other benefits, particularly housing benefits. So, net overall, the financial gain that family would have would actually be very small. When you consider the small financial increment which that family might get from moving from the remote location to the larger economic centre versus the additional work and the loss of leisure time, being away from their family and homelands and the potential loss of their social house, which they may have had for many years, then you can see that it is not always a good deal for them to take up that opportunity in the short term.
An Indigenous grandmother from Hope Vale on Cape York Peninsula coined, for this disincentive to take up employment, the 'welfare pedestal' that her people were sitting on. By that she meant that the system presently creates a pedestal that people sit on, such that they have to take a step down off the pedestal onto the first employment step before they can start the staircase of further opportunity, and that creates a significant disincentive for many people. This bill will change that equation somewhat. It will partly address this welfare pedestal by providing additional financial incentives for people who are on welfare to take up opportunities elsewhere, should they choose to do so. Other measures to address the pedestal are also being considered through the Forrest review on Indigenous employment and training. We know that financial implications are not the only things that prevent a person or encourage a person orbiting from one location to another and perhaps going backwards and forwards, but of course they are an important consideration. I am hopeful that the measures which are outlined in this bill will make a difference in providing opportunities for more families to take up work if they choose to do so.
I visited Palm Island last week with the member for Herbert and we saw some inspiring things there. One was a family who had built their own home on Indigenous land. We believe it is the first home built on Indigenous land on a homeownership basis and the construction price was much lower than the government-delivered social housing. It was heartening to see that positive development, as well as the increased school attendance on Palm Island which had come about from our school attendance officers who have been put in place. I was also interested to learn from the local people on Palm Island that many young people under the age of 30 generally had a desire to work, even if that did involve moving to Townsville, which is not far away from the island. It is currently difficult for them to do so, but the right attitude was clearly present.
Perhaps it is hard for those of us who do not have their background to understand how insurmountable some of the obstacles are for them to take that step of getting employment somewhere else and perhaps orbiting backwards and forwards. If you or your family have limited resources, that first step of moving, of paying a bond and so on, might be exceptionally hard. This is where the measures of this bill will be vitally important. The important thing here is opportunity; that is what this bill provides. It provides that opportunity and it gives people the choice to take it up if they choose to do so. We would like them to consider that and to work out if it makes sense for those individuals and for the families concerned.
Finally, let me briefly mention the differences that the measures that this bill makes compared to some previous measures that were in place. There are several different changes that are being put in place in this bill and which are different to previous schemes. Firstly, it is only the long-term unemployed who are eligible to take up the assistance which is on offer through this bill, and not redundant workers—there are other measures for redundant workers through Jobs Services Australia. Secondly, the bill specifically encourages mobility to those regional areas where there are jobs and where there are labour shortages—that is a specific goal of this particular bill. Thirdly, it is worth more than the previous scheme, which on average only gave $1,600 for people with no dependents and $3,600 for people with dependents. This scheme offers a total value of up to $15,500 for a family if they choose to take up all of the opportunities which it provides.
Finally, an important difference is that the non-payment period will increase from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. The reason that is important is because all of the research shows that 26 weeks is one of those tipping points; that if a person gets to 26 weeks of employment, having been unemployed for some time beforehand, then they are highly likely to stick it out from there on. This package provides those payments at 26 weeks only and not payments earlier on.
This is the ethos that we should all share; wanting to get and encouraging people to take up work where it is—to provide incentives for people to move, should they want to, to take up those jobs. We know—as I said at the outset—that if people have work then they are empowered and have dignity, they have the ability to look after their family better, their mental health and their physical health is going to be better and they are going to have a better outlook on life, including better housing. I commend this bill for improving the employment prospects not just of Indigenous people but of all Australians across this great nation.
I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Franklin in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, that amendment states that the House notes that if the government were serious about addressing youth unemployment it would be providing more support for workers whose jobs will be lost, as recently announced, and would be providing more support and training for young people. Secondly, it calls on the government to review publicly by 30 June 2015 the impact of the extension of the non-payment period for recipients of the Relocation Assistance to Take up a Job if the person is unable to work for the required six months.
Broadly speaking, any legislation that encourages increased employment and participation in ongoing meaningful work is a good thing, so Labor is very pleased to be supporting this bill with that amendment. There are two very specific components of the bill that provide the purpose here. The first one goes to the Job Commitment Bonus, which enables young Australians aged 18 to 30 and who have been receiving a Newstart Allowance or a Youth Allowance—other than an apprentice or a full-time student—for a period of at least 12 months to be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500 if they remain in gainful work and off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
There is another component of this bill, which goes to the Relocation Assistance to Take up a Job. That aspect of the bill will provide some financial assistance for long-term unemployed job seekers with participation requirements and who have been receiving Newstart Allowance, Youth Allowance—again, other than an apprentice or full-time student—or a parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months. That is enabling them to relocate for the purposes of commencing ongoing employment. That program is demand driven and will provide up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who will relocate to a regional area other than a metropolitan area or a regional area, or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers to relocate into a metropolitan area. Those two aspects are components that Labor readily lends our support to.
But while Labor is supporting this bill and the measures it encompasses—both the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program—it is timely for members of this House to reflect on how we might create the very best environment with the very best conditions and incentives for Australians—both young and old—to gain and maintain meaningful, well-paid jobs for today and the future. Governments themselves cannot expect young people to get well-paid jobs without investing in education and training, and without cultivating the right social and economic conditions for job creation. This government is failing on these fronts. They have whipped up a storm about a budget emergency that does not exist, creating unwarranted fear and anxiety in the community rather than creating new jobs. They have goaded major companies to leave our shores and, indeed, some are leaving Australia to do business. And when the government is not blaming workers for the collapse of those industries, we have a prime minister who has perversely suggested that those employees losing their jobs are somehow being liberated.
This is a government that is dismantling a once-in-a-generation, life-changing infrastructure project that would have delivered superfast broadband nationwide and is replacing it with a hotchpotch of mixed and already out-of-date technologies. This government has torn up the independent education funding model and given up on the notion that we should address the growing inequalities in school funding and resources. Rather than tackle the systemic causes of inequality, this government prefers to maintain the status quo and indeed reward those states who have failed to invest adequately in education themselves. They will be handed precious Commonwealth funds with no requirement to meet any of the recommended education targets and loadings to ensure that no child is left behind.
The outlook for higher education is no less bleak. Conservative state governments across Australia are starving our TAFE colleges of critical funds and resources. In New South Wales the state Liberal government has cut more than $1.8 billion from its education budget. In my electorate of Newcastle our schools and TAFEs are hurting. Hunter TAFE has undergone a dramatic period of rationalisation, shedding up to 60 staff. Courses in information technology and ship and boat building have been scrapped. Mining and manufacturing apprenticeship enrolments have dropped by almost half. These are tough times for the young men and women in Newcastle seeking further education and training. The long-term economic prosperity of our region depends on more people getting higher education qualifications, but this government is making access to higher education harder, not easier, for young people. John Hartigan, the former CEO of News Limited Australia, said, 'Make no mistake: no skills, no job, no quality of life.'
That the Abbott government has no plan for Australian industry and Australian jobs is especially worrying. More job cuts are announced every week. Overall unemployment figures are rising, job creation is low and the jobs of the future hang in limbo. Tony Abbott, as the opposition leader, said that he did not want to lead a nation that does not make things, but he has no plans to ensure the future of Australian manufacturing. Australians deserve a government that will fight for jobs and support workers and job seekers. My Labor colleagues and I are very concerned about the job loss announcements that have been made since the new government came to office. The government has in fact steadfastly refused to support some of those industries that have asked for our assistance and thus the jobs contained in those industries. Tens of thousands of cuts have been announced since they took office, and the list keeps growing.
While the cuts and job losses include jobs at small businesses around the country, they also include large multinational companies who now believe that their future in Australia needs to be drastically cut back or that they need to leave our shores altogether. Companies like Qantas, Toyota, Holden, Rio Tinto, Electrolux, Simplot and Caterpillar have all announced that their workforces will be significantly shrinking in Australia. In and around my electorate of Newcastle, Brindabella Airlines, Bluetongue Brewery, Sensis, WesTrac, UGL and EDI have all announced major direct job losses and some have announced closures.
I am afraid that more job loss announcements are on the way. Today my colleagues the members for Charlton, Gellibrand and Port Adelaide supported the important motion flagging the danger that the shipbuilding industry in Australia faces if we do not see action from this government soon. As I have raised previously in this place, Forgacs, a major shipbuilder and employer in Newcastle, has flagged the potential of 900 jobs being lost if this government does not bring forward major naval shipbuilding contracts. In 2013 Labor made a commitment to bring forward the contracts to replace HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius to ensure the industry had a future in Australia. Unfortunately, this government has made no such commitment, so the future of shipbuilders like Forgacs in Newcastle, BAE Systems in Melbourne and ASC in Adelaide remains uncertain. Instead of planning for future work and job creation, Forgacs are forced to face the prospect of closing their shipyards in Carrington and Tomago. I again call on this government to support the shipbuilding industry in Australia, to bring forward the naval shipbuilding contracts before it is too late, to secure our naval shipbuilding capacity and to keep highly skilled workers employed in Australia.
The workers at Forgacs are in a similar position to thousands of other employees at government agencies and departments located in my electorate who just do not know what their future is. Thought bubbles from the government that flags potential cuts at a number of government agencies are still hovering above the heads of workers in Newcastle. Employees at the CSIRO Energy Centre, the ATO, ABC Radio, the Defence Materiel Organisation, Customs and Centrelink have all been placed under pressure by this government with worry—undue or perhaps due, we simply do not know. The government continues to sit on the commission of cuts report for political reasons while workers around the country are waiting to know if they will have a job in the future. Leaks are regular as it tests the waters again with the public, but those workers continue to face uncertainty. That is just not good enough.
We have seen the unemployment rate under this government rise to six per cent—a rate not seen throughout the global financial crisis and a rate that has not been seen since Prime Minister Abbott last had influence over the employment portfolio as the minister for employment under the Howard Liberal government. This troublingly high unemployment rate of six per cent does not take into account the thousands of recently announced job losses I have just mentioned, so we know there is more pain to come.
On the other side of the unemployment rate equation to job losses is job creation. Before the election Prime Minister Abbott promised he would create one million jobs in five years—that is, 200,000 jobs per year. After six months with this Prime Minister, this government should have created 100,000 jobs to be on target. Instead, only 33,700 jobs have been created. The government is lagging behind on both sides of the equation and failing the Australian people.
Youth unemployment is a huge issue for Australia, and for young Australians in particular. In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school, to get the training and higher education they need for well-paying jobs. Based on the ABS's latest national labour market statistics, the national youth unemployment rate is double that of the overall rate, with 12.2 per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds unemployed. Converted to overall numbers, that is 40 per cent of all unemployed Australians. In other words, more than one in three unemployed Australians are young, between the ages of 15 and 24. That is astonishing and it is something that we cannot allow to be maintained in Australia. Our young people deserve and expect much better. In my electorate of Newcastle, the youth unemployment rate is 13 percent. Again, this is more than double the national average.
As stated in the recent youth unemployment report prepared by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, there are a number of things government needs to do to improve opportunities for young people to gain and maintain employment. The report calls on governments to invest in young people; to invest to improve employability skills; to invest to provide better real work experience opportunities; to invest to provide coaching and vocational guidance; and to invest to connect young people with employment opportunities.
When in government, Labor took this investment in youth seriously and vastly improved training and employment services for young people. We also committed to continue to improve opportunities, announcing changes to job services to provide a Jobs, Training and Apprenticeship Guarantee. The guarantee would have meant that every Australian would have had access to telephone and on-line career advice, skills appraisals, assistance with resume writing, be engaged with an employment service provider and would be starting to work on return-to-work plans within two days of registration.
In government, Labor made a record investment in skills and training for smarter jobs and a smarter, stronger nation. Labor believes in a strong public provider that underpins a high quality VET system. This is why we support TAFE. We devoted resources and energy into vastly improving the fragmented and poorly funded system that the Howard government had left us, a system that conservative state governments continue to undermine. My electorate of Newcastle benefited enormously from Labor's investment in training and education, with every one of my high schools having a Trades Training Centre or being a part of a consortium to that has access to a Trades Training Centre. It is deeply worrying that the government does not support these centres and the continuation of this program. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. Importantly, this bill puts in place two of the coalition's key election commitments. These are the Job Commitment Bonus and the Relocation Assistance to Take up a Job Program. Both these commitments will commence on 1 July 2014 and they are an important part of our plan to put the economy back on track.
Let me set the scene for why this government needs to legislate policy such as what we are doing here at the moment to kick-start our economy, to drive jobs creation. We are talking about the creation of long-term sustainable jobs. We are not talking about what happened in my electorate of Corangamite several years ago, when the then industry minister Mr Combet gave $40 million to Alcoa, saying it would put Alcoa on a long-term, jobs sustainable footing. That has been an unmitigated disaster. We now see Alcoa is closing. I cannot tell you what grief that is causing right throughout the Geelong region. Labor's legacy is 200,000 more unemployed, $123 billion in cumulative deficits across the forward estimates, a gross debt heading towards $667 billion, and the world's biggest carbon tax.
Let us not forget the damage the carbon tax is doing. In manufacturing alone, this is a $1.1 billion hit on jobs. In my region, in Corangamite, in Geelong, the people of Geelong understand the damage the carbon tax is doing. This is a tax on jobs. This is a tax on the people of Geelong. That is why we are so determined to repeal the carbon tax. Labor's legacy of debt and deficit is a shameful one indeed. This is the fastest deterioration in debt in modern Australian history. Labor's debt is already costing the Australian public $10 billion a year in net interest payments. It is important that we understand these figures in the context of the employment rate. When Labor was voted out of office last year, there were 200,000 more unemployed Australians than in November 2007, when the coalition was last in government. The number of unemployed Australians went from 492,000 in November 2007 to 691,000 in September 2013. Contrast this to the record under the Howard government, where the number of unemployed people decreased by 269,000 during the coalition's time in office. I think it is fair to say the coalition is recognised by Australians as better economic managers, for a very important reason. We understand the importance of running the budget responsibility. We understand the importance of building a strong and prosperous economy, a safe and secure Australia.
Last week in Geelong, I attended the Geelong Manufacturing Council dinner. It was a terrific function, bringing together many of our finest manufacturers. I would like to remind the member for Newcastle—despite the spin and the deception that we continue to here from Labor—about our commitment to long-term, sustainable jobs. We have a bright manufacturing future. I come from a very proud manufacturing region. There are many wonderful stories to be told in manufacturing. We have great opportunities and great potential, but all we hear from those opposite is a dragging down of our economy, a dragging down of our potential and, frankly, that is unacceptable.
Labor's track record in unemployment is completely shameful. I look at what has happened since the carbon tax was introduce—102,000 more Australians are now unemployed. Labor continues to block the repeal of this job-destroying carbon tax and the job-destroying mining tax. During Labor's time in office, unemployment went from 4.4 per cent in November 2007 to 5.5 per cent in September 2013. Labor left us with an unemployment rate across Australia that has now risen to six per cent and, on Labor's own figures, is forecast to rise to 6.25 per cent. It is clear that the member for Newcastle has not read her own party's documentation and her own party's forecasts because this is the unemployment rate that Labor created. This is the unemployment rate that Labor forecast and it is going up because of Labor's reckless management of our economy and its reckless regard for the importance of long-term jobs creation.
This morning, an article published in the Financial Review looked at Labor's unwillingness to support a raft of savings measures that this government has on the table to get the economy back on track and to create the conditions that lead to new jobs. I refer to the article, 'Labor's tax block will cost "$1,800 per person"'. The headlines tell the story—and we have laughter from members opposite! I am sorry to see that there is laughter on such a serious matter. This is not a laughing matter. These are Labor cuts. The intransigence of Labor could cause a $45 billion black hole in the economy. As I mentioned, some of the savings measures were championed by Labor in its dying days as it tried to pick up the pieces after a six-year spending spree.
The government is taking the necessary action to turn this economy around. Unfortunately, those opposite fail to see the reality. They are now actually denying their own savings measures. So yes, those opposite have rightly earned the title 'government change deniers'. It is unfortunate that those opposite continue to laugh because it is a really serious situation that we now face as we see, due to Labor, the unemployment rate. I am very proud of the measures we are taking to create long-term jobs to build confidence and to build new opportunities. I look at what is happening at my own electorate at Corangamite.
I am working as a member of the economic review panel chaired by minister Macfarlane and we are working very hard. We have announced a growth fund. We are working very hard on our review of the South Australian and the Victorian economies. Our focus is on growing long-term jobs, investing in new and emerging industries, in biosciences, in food processing, in IT communications and in advanced manufacturing. I was very proud to join the minister in announcing $5 million for Carbon Revolution, an incredible company that is building another 150 new jobs with the work that it is doing in developing a world-class carbon fibre automotive wheel, taking Australian innovation to the world. As I said, there are some wonderful stories. This is another example of where Ford workers, who are grappling with the demise of Ford manufacturing and the car industry under Labor, are now being employed in this new company. We are working very hard to help these traditional manufacturing workers transition to new and exciting opportunities like the one we are seeing at Carbon Revolution.
The coalition believes that every Australian who is capable of working should have the opportunity to do so. It is very important for the broader economy and also for the individual. This bill and the programs it sets up are designed to help people, like those who are without a job in my electorate, find work and stay off welfare. These programs are part of the coalition's economic plan that the Australian people voted for in September last year. We are delivering on these important election commitments, just as we are delivering on a whole host of our commitments across all sectors of the economy.
As we have heard, the Job Commitment Bonus is a new payment. Unsurprisingly, there was no equivalent payment under the former Labor government. This bonus rewards people aged between 18 and 30 to get and keep a job and remain off welfare. Eligible young jobseekers will receive $2,500 after 12 months in continuous employment and they will receive a further $4,000 if they remain in continuous employment and off welfare for another 12 months. This is a fantastic investment by this government to help young, long-term unemployed Australians to move away from welfare dependency, to learn the value of working and to find and keep a job. As I mentioned in this House previously, in this debate, jobseekers will have to meet the following criteria to qualify for further bonus payments—they need to be aged between 18 and 30, they need to get a job and remain employed for 12 months and, as I mentioned, after another 12 months they can be eligible for the second payment of $4,000.
Importantly, employment can be full-time, part-time, casual or shift work. Another great initiative championed by this bill is the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, which gives people the opportunity to go where they need to go for work. It is one thing to say 'Go to where the work is,' but it is not always that easy.
Debate interrupted.
I rise this evening to urge the government to make a clear commitment when it comes to renewing the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. The agreement emanated from The Road Home report in 2008, which was designed to provide funding for basic human needs like shelter and food for Australians who found themselves homeless. Last year, Labor extended the funding for another year, putting in an extra $159 million to be matched by the states. I advise the House that this agreement is due to expire in June. The government needs to urgently renegotiate this agreement with service providers to ensure that funding for the next four years is available. Service providers in this area need certainty. They are already being forced to turn away many clients and are losing staff in anticipation of funding cuts. The government simply cannot consider making savings on the back of the most vulnerable and at-risk groups in our community, particularly not when the government is committed to its super-generous paid parental leave scheme which caters for the well-to-do of our community.
More than 100,000 people in Sydney alone are homeless and many of them are in a serious state of crisis, with a large number escaping home due to domestic violence. The 2008 white paper on homelessness, which was supported by other studies, showed a very clear link between homelessness and domestic violence. In fact, escaping family violence is the No. 1 reason for seeking specialist homelessness services. Thirty-four per cent of people seeking assistance from such services in 2012 had experienced domestic or family violence and 78 per cent of the victims were women. Consequently, there is a very clear need for short-term and emergency accommodation for women in this situation.
Women are still the primary victims of domestic violence. Recently, we celebrated International Women's Day which, together with White Ribbon Day, draws attention to the significance of domestic violence and why it should be on top of the national agenda—not just when we come together on occasions such as White Ribbon Day but throughout the year. One woman in Australia dies every week from domestic violence. Last year, in New South Wales, 24 women were killed in domestic violence related incidents including a mother of three, Keeli Dutton, from Miller in my electorate of Fowler. In my area, over 50 per cent of all assaults responded to by the police are domestic violence related and almost half of all homicide cases are domestic violence related. This is not surprising considering the statistics that one in three women is likely to become a victim to violence in her lifetime while one in five is likely to experience sexual violence. Sadly, women are much more likely to be assaulted, injured or killed by a male partner than any other person.
It is impossible for children in families experiencing domestic violence to be immune and unharmed. Not only are they often themselves being assaulted but also there is strong evidence that this trauma will impact on their futures. Evidence suggests that half of all the girls who grow up in abusive households end up in relationships with an abuser, and, even more alarmingly, 60 per cent of young boys growing up in these situations become abusers themselves. Most women seeking assistance from homelessness services have children. Nationally, every second woman is presently being turned away from support services because of a lack of resources. The Bonnie's Women Support Services in my electorate provides support and transitional housing for women escaping domestic violence. Betty Green, the acting chair of the Bonnie service, recently told me that funding cuts would seriously impact on the services provided by the centre, which is already working at full capacity.
While we must focus on challenging attitudes that allow domestic violence to continue, the government needs to do its job and ensure that the vital support services are there and available, and funded. We cannot allow women and children in this country to be forced back into unsafe environments simply because adequate support is not available.
Can I identify with the words of the member for Fowler with regard to domestic violence. I was not going to speak again on single parent families until I received an email today. It was from an Australian teacher, Haje Halabi from the Jakarta International School. It said at the bottom of the email that children are 'one-third of our population and all of our future'. What we want for our children is hope for the future, some control over their lives and a sense of belonging. Given that the future is yet to be written, the decisions that we make today will go a long way towards its construction. For many of Australia's most marginalised I see a future where nothing is won unless it is taken.
There are too many alarming anomalies in the welfare system to ignore. While we quite rightly support our older Australians I do not believe we are giving families the same backing. A family earning more than $48,837 per year loses the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit A, making them ineligible for a health card. This family with three children, with a father earning not more than $39,000 and a mother earning less than $10,000, does not receive a health card. This family, which has a 13-year-old asthma sufferer, an eight-year-old with a bronchial cough he can never shake and a five-year-old who has a regular ear infection, does not get a health card to help them out. While the medical and health costs continue to mount—with $18 for an Able Spacer, $10 for eardrops and countless more spent on a persistent bronchial cough, not to mention even more expensive pills and potions for everyone's winter ailments—this family does not get a health card. This family, who can barely afford school supplies, a night out or a doctor, does not get a health card.
Those couples in our community with an annual adjusted income of up to $80,000—or $100,000 for couples separated by illness, respite care or where one partner may be in prison—may qualify for a Commonwealth seniors health card. I do not have to explain the benefits given by a Commonwealth seniors health card, including pharmaceutical benefits, prescription medicines and other discounts. Under the work bonus scheme, for instance, a single age pensioner can earn $250 a fortnight from work without fear of losing benefits. In fact, a pensioner with no other source of income can earn up to $406 a fortnight and still receive the maximum rate for the age pension. By comparison, for every dollar over $62 a fortnight that a sole parent on Newstart earns in paid employment, 40c in the dollar is taken from her benefits—an effective tax rate.
I do honour older Australians; I have always honoured older Australians for the contribution they have made to our country. For many others, especially those children brought up living in poverty in sole parent and low-income families, the future will always be something dark looming on the horizon. They will often be suffering poorer health, doing less well at school and suffering low self-esteem. Cast aside while the more privileged are given a helping hand, these children feel aggrieved. They will someday grow up into aggrieved adults. What are we to expect of these tens of thousands of children pushed to the margins of society by uncaring decisions of this nation? Do we expect them to grow up and become law-abiding taxpayers, when we have shown them so little concern in their most desperate days? Should we show surprise if more than a few turn against us, biting the hand that failed to feed them?
Australia's human capital should be viewed as our most valuable resource, especially when it comes to children. Society, as a collective, is healthiest when all of its parts are in good shape. Look around the world today and you will see the destructive nature of poverty. It may only directly affect one small group, but the infection spreads, leading to poorer standards in schools, higher crime rates, lower productivity in industry and lower aspirations across the board. A healthy society is one where everybody at least has a chance to get a piece of the pie. Being locked out, forgotten and disregarded leads only to resentment—a powerful poison that barely dilutes through successive generations. Some of these figures will change on 20 March. According to legislation passed by the previous government, the minimum amount a Newstart sole parent can earn will rise from $62 to $100.
Sole parent families are already facing extreme hardship, with poverty rates at 19.3 per cent—more than double that of couples with families and children. Last year, one in eight Australians was living in poverty, with close to 600,000 of them being children. Half of those children are cared for by a sole parent.
All those in this parliament should view an equitable education system as an absolute priority. We should view as a measure of our success as a parliament whether children currently going through our schooling system are seeing greater opportunity than their parents and grandparents saw before them. In no case is that more true than when we look at children with disability. With a lot of focus on the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we have seen in recent years that Australians have stood up and said that enough is enough, that it is not good enough that we have a fragmented system which is letting down far too many people living with disability, as well as their parents and caregivers. This is true when you look at the education system. We know that, for individual students, for teachers and staff at a school and for other students who share a class, we need to make sure that we have appropriate support in place to guide the learning of students with special needs and disability.
We know that additional funding loadings to meet the specific and individual needs of students with disability and learning difficulties were a key part of the Gonski recommendations—the Gonski recommendations which the former Labor government adopted and the Gonski recommendations about which the now Prime Minister assured the Australian people that he was on an absolute unity ticket. We know that, if we are going to deliver additional support for students with disability, money is required in addition to that already provided through the Gonksi reforms—that is, on top of the $14.65 billion promised in additional funding under the Labor government.
We currently have an incredibly unfair system. What these students and their families have at the moment is a lottery of borders. In 2009-10 the Productivity Commission identified a huge disparity between the states in the average levels of support for students with disability. As an example, funding varied from $8,000 per student in the Northern Territory to $42,000 per student in Tasmania. We also know that on different sides of the border disability is defined differently. For some disabilities there is support in some states but not in others.
We set up a process of working with states and territories to finalise a nationally consistent disability reporting methodology ahead of the national commencement of the new loading in 2015. This was incredibly significant—incredibly overdue, some could argue—but very important in our education system and in our progress in making sure that every student at every school had every opportunity to get the best education. When we were in government, we recognised that we needed to make sure that we did the work and that we got the loadings right. So we allocated $100 million in interim funding for 2014—running out at the end of this year—whilst the work was done to finalise the costings for the new loading to come into place by 2015. Of course, we are now just eight weeks from the budget, and this government still has not given a clear indication of how much money will be needed to meet this commitment in 2015.
Before the election, we saw the Minister for Education state:
We have long argued that the current funding arrangements for students with disability and learning difficulty are unfair and inequitable.
If elected to Government the Coalition will continue the data collection work that has commenced, which will be used to deliver more funding for people with disability through the ‘disability loading’ in 2015.
That was further emphasised by the Prime Minister in question time in December, when he said, 'On schools, those loadings will be fully delivered over the coming four years,' yet we now see the Minister for Education walking away from these commitments. In January, he said that there would be the same funding envelope and the same process for students with a disability, as outlined and agreed to by the former government with education ministers and that nothing would change.
That is precisely the problem. We need changes, we need the new nationally consistent definitions and we need the additional funding because we have seen far too many broken promises from this government when it comes to education. If students with disability and their families were promised an additional loading, additional funding and that we would right the wrongs of the past in our education system, this would be the cruellest betrayal of them all. In eight weeks time, we will find out exactly how much this government has played the cruellest trick on these students and their families.
Air combat is the most fundamental and vital capability of a defence force. Without air superiority, Australia's land and sea forces would be exposed to enemy air attack if we were to go to war. The RAAF would be unable to effectively project lethal force against enemy targets. We are planning to buy the Joint Strike Fighter—or F-35—to provide that capability, which capability will need to be effective through to around 2060. General Michael Hostage, Chief of the United States Air Force Air Combat Command recently stated:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
The mission of Air Combat Command is to be the primary force provider of non-nuclear combat capability to America's war-fighting commands. The loss of air superiority leaves our fighting men and women highly vulnerable as we will not have the F-22.
LockMart defines the JSF as fifth generation, but it does not comply with what the market sees as fifth generation. LockMart is quite happy to come to Australia and mislead—if not deceive—both the parliament and the population on multiple issues. They are desperate to generate sales and lock customers in even though their project is in trouble.
I started criticising the JSF in late 2005. Defence and LockMart then said that the JSF would be in operational service in Australia in 2012 at a cost of around $65 million per aircraft. The reality now—optimistically—is 2020 and $135 million per aircraft. The Russians and Chinese have F-22 competitors flying now, so any stealth advantage the JSF may have had is now negated. Post 2015, it will be a stealth-on-stealth/counter-stealth world. When the JSF enters service, it will already be well surpassed and overmatched, like buying Sopwith Camels to fight the Battle of Britain or an old Toyota Camry to race in Formula 1—wrong purpose, wrong era.
Defence has been way too gullible, simply accepting LockMart's assertions and assurances without properly conducting due diligence. I am unaware of any 'red team' within Defence for the express purpose of looking for flaws and problems within the JSF designs and JSF program. Critics, who have been shown to be correct on cost, schedule, aeropropulsive performance and system capabilities, have been derided and ignored as not having access to classified data. At what price is that data classified when Defence officials have been proven wrong time and again?
Technically, the United States Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation—or DOT&E—determines not only whether the aircraft meets the specification it is intended to meet—and the F-35 does not in many areas—but also whether the specification is adequate for the aircraft to fulfil its operational purpose. The recent DOT&E reports are very troubling and make clear that the aircraft is unlikely to be fit for purpose. At the very least, we should defer any decision or contracts to purchase the JSF until such a time that the United States DOT&E testing proves the JSF fit for purpose.
With an initial operational capability of 2020, we have the luxury of being able to wait until this determination has been made before committing to any purchase. In this environment, making any other decision would be rash, ill-thought-through and, frankly, irresponsible and reckless. The unqualified commitment to the JSF program by previous governments is nothing more than writing a blank cheque. How is it responsible or defensible that we ask others to tighten up—refusing corporate welfare for the car industry—while at the same time we provide corporate welfare to LockMart?
This protection or denial of the truth about the F-35's performance is borne out of a fear to own up to a mistake. As a parliament, we are all too ready to say sorry for nearly everything, except for wasting taxpayers' money or endangering lives. As the Commission of Audit hands down its preliminary report, we should ask to see a cost benefit analyses. Let me bring this debate to a conclusion with an Irish saying: 'If you buy what you don't need, you might have to sell what you do need.'
Earlier this month, the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released their biannual State of the climate report. The report provides data and trends relating to climate change and climate change observations. The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are two of Australia's most reputable government organisations. Their credibility is crucial to their existence. The report showed that, in line with climate science predictions, the atmosphere and oceans around Australia are warming. Indeed, last year was the warmest year on record. Notably, air temperatures across Australia were, on average, one degree centigrade warmer than they were a hundred years ago and sea surface temperatures had risen by 0.9 of a degree over the same period. Most of the temperature increases have occurred since 1950.
The report also found that seven out of the 10 warmest years on record in Australia have occurred since 1998 and the frequency of very warm months has increased fivefold while the frequency of very cool months has decreased by around one third. These are serious changes to weather patterns and to our climate. It also found that the duration, frequency and intensity of heatwaves has increased across large parts of Australia since 1950.
These are not extrapolations, theories, models or predictions but factual reports of how Australia's climate has changed over the last century. The temperature rises and changes to Australia's weather patterns are consistent with climate changes across the world, which show that: firstly, mean carbon dioxide levels reached 395 parts per million in 2013; secondly, global temperatures are rising, with most of the heat being absorbed by our oceans; thirdly, that sea levels have risen by about 225 millimetres since 1880 and that the ocean acidity levels have also risen over that time; and, fourthly, ice mass lost from the Antarctic and Greenland icesheets has accelerated over the past two decades, whilst Antarctic sea ice has slightly increased since 1979. All of these changes point towards more frequent and more extreme weather events precisely of the type that the world has experienced in recent years, confirming earlier predictions by climate scientists. Yet we continue to be subjected to a well-organised campaign by climate change sceptics—possibly funded by the fossil fuel industry—questioning the climate change science and being given too much prominence, I believe, by some sectors of the media.
In an opinion piece that appeared in The Age on 8 February, retired Supreme Court judge David Harper refers to a statement made by internationally renowned German scientist and founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who said that the difference between two degrees Celsius of global warming and four degrees Celsius is human civilisation. David Harper goes on to say:
With so much at stake, no government that takes seriously its primary duty to protect the future of its citizens can do otherwise than immediately tackle climate warming with every reasonable means at its disposal.
It is encouraging to see that some notable business leaders are taking the lead on climate change. Virgin boss Richard Branson recently said that those who are sceptical of man-made global warming should 'get out of the way.' His comments followed a similar sentiment from Apple CEO, Tim Cook, who told a representative from the National Centre for Public Policy Research, when questioned about Apple's environmental investments: 'If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.'
Regrettably, that message is falling on the deaf ears of the Prime Minister and the Abbott government, who opportunistically prefer to use such a serious matter for political advantage rather than to live up to the responsibility that they are entrusted with. The Abbott government's plan for a cleaner environment simply does not stand up to scrutiny and will not deliver the environmental outcomes required or claimed. Bernie Fraser from the Climate Change Authority correctly noted that the Abbott government is taking its cue on climate policy from business and industry, and not from science.
Astonishingly, the Abbott government's white paper on agriculture makes no mention of climate change, even though climate change presents the sector with its greatest risks, as confirmed by reports in the media today. That refers to another CSIRO report that will be released very soon.
In years to come, the Abbott government will be seen for what it is: a government that put financial greed ahead of moral and social responsibility, that placed political self-interest ahead of national interest and that sacrificed future generations by leaving them to deal with the consequences of today's inaction.
Traineeships and apprenticeships play an important role in supporting our local economy and in providing a pathway to employment for school leavers. This government understands the need to build a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead. This means cutting the waste and restoring the budget to a sustainable surplus, supporting small business by removing unnecessary red and green tape to reduce compliance costs and, importantly for my electorate, providing more support to those undertaking traineeships and apprenticeships.
Across Australia there is a well-documented demand for traineeships and apprenticeships, with 26,400 people taking up a trade in the quarter ending December 2013. Unfortunately, national completion rates for traineeships and apprenticeships have fallen as low as 50 per cent. Given the significant economic cost, time and resources provided for traineeships and apprenticeships, we have to look at why this is occurring and address the problem by introducing effective and practical initiatives to lift completion rates. In Dobell, we face challenges in transitioning young adults from schooling to further education and potential employment.
December's Labour Force Survey found that on the Central Coast 28 per cent of people aged between 15 and 19 years who are looking for full-time work cannot find a job. With only one in two students completing year 12 and only 14 per cent of people aged 17 to 22 years engaged in tertiary education, there is an increased need for access to well-supported traineeships and apprenticeships. In Dobell, we have some excellent local registered training organisations and group training organisations that provide support to our small businesses that are looking to take on a trainee or apprentice. In Dobell, the government has partnered with Central Coast Group Training and has committed $2.7 million towards the development of local employment and trade centres.
The local demand for apprenticeships is highlighted by the 4,065 highly motivated and enthusiastic people who are currently seeking employment and training opportunities and are registered with Central Coast Group Training. Presently, Central Coast Group Training is only able to place 140 people a year. It is estimated that the government's partnership with Central Coast Group Training will enable further employment of over 200 apprentices and trainees directly.
As the mother of two sons, I understand the challenges faced by the youth of the Central Coast to find employment and the pressure on the families who want opportunity for their children. This is why I am committed to programs and initiatives to support training and apprenticeships.
It is important that employers seeking to engage a trainee or apprentice have access to support mechanisms that minimise the associated risks to their own businesses. Group training organisations support and assist host employers by minimising the administrative burden of taking on a trainee or apprentice. They do this by taking on the responsibility for the administrative and compliance aspects of engaging an apprentice or a trainee such as recruitment, workers compensation, payroll and administration, training requirements and work health and safety, just to name a few. Partnering with group training organisations to deliver greater outcomes for local communities through providing successful traineeships and apprenticeships is important if we are going to successfully provide opportunity for our youth. We also need to provide support to those seeking to undertake trades and the government will provide financial assistance through interest-free trade support loans of up to $20,000. This will assist apprentices to cover everyday costs associated with their apprenticeship. Trade support loans will be repayable at the same thresholds that FEE-HELP loans are for university students so that apprentices do not have to repay any money until they are earning a sustainable income. Apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeships will receive an immediate 20 per cent discount on their trade support loans. This measure seeks to boost apprenticeship completion rates that, as previously highlighted, are at an unacceptable low.
Learning a trade skill is invaluable to the individual, to the community and to our economy. Future productivity and competitiveness depend on a skilled and trained workforce; therefore, it is essential that we assist more young people to take up a trade career. I am proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of supporting traineeships and apprenticeships and the need to build a stronger and more prosperous economy so that everyone can get ahead.
House adjourned at 21 : 30
Today I want to talk about a wonderful food and wine festival, the Taste of the Huon, which was held in my electorate over the long weekend on 9 and 10 March this year and has a 22-year history. We had a record at this Taste of the Huon: more than 20,000 people came on the first day and they were expecting another 10,000 on the second day, on that Monday morning of the long weekend.
It is held at Ranelagh Showgrounds, which is about 30 minutes south of Hobart in my electorate and part of the great Huon Valley. The Huon is well known for its apples but it is also very well known for its salmon. The salmon industry has had a great revival in Tasmania and is growing at more than $1 million a week. Mushrooms, vineyards, wines, great berries—and my favourite, raspberries—and truffles are also farmed in the area, and it is a great display of local produce.
The stallholders at Taste numbered more than 100 this year—up from 80 last year—and, as I said, record crowds came to see them. There were a very broad range of stalls from the well-known Cascade beer to our ciders—a revival of the cider industry is also happening in Tasmania and we have some great local ciders from the Huon.
Frank's Ciders has been in the Huon since about 1836 and is a wonderful little boutique cider producer. The well-known Willie Smiths was started up by Andrew Smith just a few years ago with his grandfather Willie's great recipe—I am sure that I will get many requests for samples for this wonderful cider from my electorate. There are also Lost Pippin Cider, Pagan Cider, Red Sails Cider, Spreyton Cider, the Two Metre Tall Cider and so many more in this industry in my electorate and around Tasmania, so it was great to see the cider industry at Taste of the Huon.
As I said, there were lots of berries, in ice-creams and with pancakes—a wonderful array of desserts and foods. Festival goers were able to have some lunch and sit down in the glorious weather. It was very sunny down at the Taste of the Huon. I think it was almost 30 degrees on the Sunday when I went with the bumper crowd and there were a whole range of stores from salmon to meat and wagyu beef—really beautiful local produce.
I would encourage anybody who is coming to Tasmania in March next year to come down to the great Huon Valley to sample some of this great produce, the great wine and the great food that is coming out of the Huon these days. It is a wonderful experience, and people cannot go wrong coming down to visit Taste of the Huon and to experience the festival that is held in March every year.
I rise today to acknowledge and honour a group of people who have demonstrated what it truly means to live compassion and community. I had the privilege of opening the final demonstrations of the Pink Belt Dojo on Sunday. The event was run over Saturday and Sunday this past weekend. And, firstly, I thank the Richmond club for donating the auditorium for the cause. The club is very generous to many in our community.
The Pink Belt Dojo has been established to support martial arts families when they are facing difficult times. Three martial arts leaders showed what leadership is, having taken the initiative to support families in their community—families that lived and breathed every day with them. Wayne Abbott from Fighting Fit Martial Arts Centre at McGraths Hill, Daniel Spice from Hawkesbury Martial Arts and Glen Murray from the Universal Tae Kwon Do Federation did a phenomenal job. These three men, together with every participant and family who contributed to the two-day event, demonstrated the real meaning of compassion. They saw a need that required a response. Two families living within their community who were part of the martial arts family needed support. They took action and showed compassion, which is love in action.
The two days raised funds and embraced the Kabriel family and the Wright family. Mrs Jenny Kabriel and her family from Freemans Reach are facing the challenge following Jenny's diagnosis with stage 3 breast cancer. Her husband, Michael, and their three children, Tiffany, Tasman and Melanie, were present at the event. They did a wonderful job contributing. The family of Bridget Wright—many of us would have heard of the eight-year-old who lost her life when the tree branch at Pitt Town fell on her only a few weeks ago—was represented by Bridget's father, James Wright.
They were all honoured on Sunday and were presented with what is called a pink belt. They also acknowledged a young girl who had lost her father last year. The love and support was evident as each family was presented with a pink belt by a special guest, Mike Chat, an extremely renowned instructor from the US who again demonstrated compassion and leadership. His school in the US is a training hub for martial arts stunt actors. I would like to congratulate the three martial arts leaders as they came together, supported by a global martial arts leader, to support the Kabriel family and the Wright family. Compassion, love in action, was evident to all.
The Bendigo Spirit, our basketball team, has gone back to back in the Women's National Basketball League championships. They won their grand final on Sunday, 9 March. My home town of Bendigo was proud to host our second WNBL grand final. For the second straight season, the Bendigo Spirit met the Townsville Fire and for the second straight season Bendigo Spirit beat the home team of the member for Herbert, the Townsville Fire.
During the last sitting week in this very chamber the member for Herbert and I had a spirited exchange on whose team would win the grand final. In that good spirit and goodwill I have a shirt for the member for Herbert, a championship shirt from Bendigo highlighting how we are again national champions. I am sure he will wear that shirt with pride.
Every team of champions needs an opposition, a team that will try to match their greatness. The match was in fact a fantastic competition of skill, spirit and team effort. The Townsville Fire brought out the best in the Bendigo Spirit and we had to play well to get the great win. With four-time Olympian and Bendigo captain Kristi Harrower, superstars Kelsey Griffin, Kelly Wilson and Gabrielle Richards taking a lead, Bendigo Spirit rose again to win the grand final. Kristi and the team are fantastic role models for the young in our community. For days and weeks and months our youngest community members will continue to bounce balls, play the game of their heroes and pretend to be their favourite Spirit players. Just a few days after young Ralph, a boy from my electorate, was playing basketball with his brother and proudly said that when he grows up he is going to play for the Bendigo Spirit. His mother, brother and I had a slight giggle at that. His brother responded with 'You can't, silly, you're a boy and it's a girl's team.'
Our young people do not distinguish between local sporting heroes, men or women, yet there are still a lot to do with regard to professional sport and women's pay rates. Much still needs to be done to achieve pay equity in the area of professional sport. Women are still paid significantly less than men when it comes to sport. In basketball, the salary cap for a male team is up to $800,000 a year where the average player in the women's basketball equivalent is between $30,000 and $40,000. As some players say, this is barely enough to pay expenses. I also note that it is the rate of the minimum wage in Australia. Things are slowly changing and with continued wins like that of Bendigo Spirit I am sure they will continue to change in the future.
Recently I had the honour of attending the opening of the Luka chocolate factory and the Australian Artisan Chocolate School at the historic Wyong Milk Factory. Luka Chocolates is a great example of an innovative small business that has brought something unique to Dobell. With support from the federal government, owners husband and wife Anton and Ekaterina have created a wonderful place for people to experience chocolate making and to taste the handiwork of the chocolatiers.
Anton and Ekaterina migrated from Russia and have only been in Australia for a few years. In Russia, Anton worked as a solicitor and Ekaterina as a biologist. The hope is that the factory will create a new type of food tourism for the Central Coast region. Visitors will come to see the Central Coast not just for its natural beauty but also for cultural tourism such as chocolate making. Along with the opening of the Australian Artisan Chocolate School, it will add a definite flavour of excitement and adventure to Wyong and the Central Coast region.
This is an important achievement for the region and for the electorate of Dobell, which, like many other areas around Australia, depend upon the engine of small business to create jobs and prosperity. Small business is the largest employer on the Central Coast. Many of these small businesses are in tourism, and they face the challenges that that entails, including the seasonal changes. Last financial year, more than five million people visited the Central Coast region. These visitors spent more than $800 million.
Spending by visitors helps our local regional economy. Tourism is a vital part of the local economy, and our growing population needs jobs. Asia's growing economic clout offers tremendous opportunities for Australian tourism, including the Central Coast region, where some of the world's most beautiful beaches lie. But we need more than natural landscapes to attract visitors who will be looking for a range of experiences that reflect the diversity of our region. This chocolate factory is an example of this. The type of investment that Luka Chocolates has made in Wyong is an example of how a small business with faith in its own prowess can make a difference by going with its strengths.
The government hopes that Australians will go with their strengths and have faith in what they are good at rather than what they think they ought to be good at. We need to remember that private enterprise creates economic growth and jobs and allows us to live the lives that we want to lead and especially to look after our families and children.
I applaud this initiative demonstrated by Luka Chocolates and congratulate Anton, Ekaterina and their team on their efforts in creating an exciting form of food tourism and a wonderful chocolate experience for locals and visitors. Anyone driving up the M1 should take the turnoff there at Wyong and, please, come and visit Luka Chocolates.
Jobs have been under attack in this nation since the Abbott government came to power. In just the last four months we have seen appalling job losses announced at Qantas, Holden, Toyota, Forge Group, Alcoa and Sensis, to name only a few of the larger companies. In total, there have been more than 14,000 lost jobs announced just among those larger companies that report, and the flow-on job losses may be two to three times those figures, particularly in those parts of the manufacturing sector impacted by the loss of our automotive industry. The national unemployment rate has not been this high in a decade. It continues to rise, and the Abbott government has no plan.
Not every job loss in the last six months is the direct responsibility of the Abbott government, but responding to each of these losses is the government's responsibility. Yet all we have heard from Mr Abbott and his Howard-era B team of ministers is empty rhetoric about jobs for the future, while at the same time the government cuts from the very institutions that are needed to build those jobs.
Why would a government that is serious about jobs for the future be cutting jobs at the CSIRO, the world-leading scientific organisation that works at the cutting edge of innovation—innovation that is vital to the development of new industries? Why would a government that is serious about jobs for the future be axing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a body that has already proved its value by making money for the Australian people while providing vital capital to build the renewable energy sector, which will employ more and more Australians to provide clean power?
But it is not all bad news. Despite the lack of any kind of plan for supporting jobs from the Abbott government, new jobs are being created in my electorate of Isaacs as plans put in place two years ago come to fruition. Last week, I visited the new factory of Chobani in the suburb of Dandenong South. The CEO of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, founded the company in 2005 in America. Chobani, which manufactures and distributes what has rapidly become America's No. 1 selling yoghurt, acquired Bead Foods, maker of Gippsland Dairy products, in 2011. Since then, Chobani has invested $30 million in building a 3,000-square-metre, state-of-the-art plant in Dandenong South.
The acquisition of Bead Foods by Chobani was a first for the company outside the US. Bead Foods and Victoria were chosen by Chobani because of the state's high-quality dairy. Since upgrading the Dandenong south plant, Chobani has tripled production capacity to more than 30,000 tonnes of yoghurt a year, and in two years it has increased its Australian workforce from 50 to about 140, with the number expected to hit 200 by the end of 2014 as it exports to South-East Asia.
Tony Abbott needs to recognise that being in government requires more than just slogans and empty rhetoric, that there are opportunities for Australian business which the government can and should encourage and assist.
Recently Gloucester was given some very welcome news with the announcement the coalition government will deliver on our election commitment to provide funding towards a new trade skills centre in Gloucester in my electorate of Lyne. The new trade skills centre will forge closer links with industry as we continue to strengthen our focus on vocational education and training in schools. The $995,000 funding injection by the coalition into vocational education and training in high schools at Gloucester will give them the opportunity to strengthen business and industry training in the valley and allow the students to develop relationships and future employment opportunities.
Gloucester High School's Metal Industries Trades Skills Centre will allow the students to obtain a Certificate 1 in Manufacturing (Pathways) and Certificate 1 in Engineering. The trades skills centre includes the refurbishment of an existing metals room to incorporate an engineering workshop and an outdoor covered area and also the provision of some equipment. It will deliver qualifications in the discipline of engineering to address skills shortages in the trades of metal fabricator and metal machinist.
Over $209 million has been offered across Australia for round 5 of the trade training centre program. There are 136 new centres, which will benefit over 220 schools, including the one at Gloucester High School in my electorate of Lyne. It is certainly welcome and I know, through my discussions with Gloucester High School Principal Pat Cavanagh and the broader community, these enhancements will enhance the trade skills of our local high school students.
Gloucester is a wonderful community deserving of this latest investment by the Australian government. The area has a strong agriculture and resources industry sector and a very large and growing tourism industry. I know Gloucester Shire Council is keen to see further diversification in the local economy. This will be helped by the allocation of over $20 million in funding that is now on the table to go towards the upgrades of Bucketts Way and Thunderbolts Way, which span the Gloucester, Greater Taree and Walcha Shires. These upgrades will improve transport linkages, critical for the existing timber, beef and tourism industries as well as future industries.
I have had discussions with Gloucester Council's mayor and general manager about the future expansion of aged care and health care in the region. Further investment in the aged-care sector is critical to the valley and to the town of Gloucester, and we are in ongoing discussions about facilitating that.
Yesterday it was by absolute privilege and pleasure to attend the official opening of the Parramatta District Men's Shed. It is an organisation which I saw form some time ago. I went to the launch a few months ago when they first got access to a wonderful space down in Fleet Street in north Parramatta. But yesterday we saw it all come together with an official opening. The rooms which were almost derelict until a few months ago are now filled with some very large tools—which I am looking forward to getting to use—and they have a wood area and a metal room, which is quite wonderful.
It is great to see another men's shed open in my district. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who worked so hard to make this happen, particularly Doug Mackay, Kerry Boyce—the president and treasurer respectively—who are now on their second men's shed. They were instrumental in opening the Northmead Men's Shed just a few kilometres north. Having done that one, they moved down to Parramatta and started work on another one. So they are well and truly veterans. I would also like to acknowledge Larry Flood and Rob Colless. I know that team of four, supported by a large number of other people, have worked tirelessly to open what is a really interesting space.
I would like to acknowledge also the land on which the Men's Shed sits, because it is an unusual piece of land. It was originally a sacred women's site for the Barramattagal clan on the banks of the Parramatta River. Then, 170 years ago as of last week, it became the Roman Catholic orphanage, the first purpose-built orphanage for girls, next door to the female convict factory, which was also the first convict factory for women. That site then became the mechanical institute for girls and the Parramatta Girls Home, so it has actually been a site for the incarceration of women for nearly 220 years. I would like to acknowledge Bonnie Djuric, who was one of the Parramatta girls, who has worked so hard to bring a space with a terrible history back into public use to be a place of hope and joy.
The presence of the Men's Shed is very much a part of that. It brings two classrooms, which the girls in the Parramatta Girls Home used when they went to school, back into the public space, and the men are committed to making the Men's Shed a very open community space as part of the healing of what is an incredible piece of Parramatta.
I was talking to one gentleman, who is a member, who summed up the purpose of Men's Sheds. He was saying he was recently retired and does not particularly like going to the pub and he looks for a place where he can go when he wants to have a chat to other men and enjoy himself, which is very rare in our community. So congratulations to the Parramatta District Men's Shed for a great job.
If you are a fan of the national game and believe, to paraphrase HG Nelson and Roy Slaven, that 'too much footy is never enough', Darwin is definitely the place to be, with year-round, non-stop, wall-to-wall footy. Australian football is crucial to the Territory's social make-up, and great Territorians like Michael Long, Maurice and Cyril Rioli, Andrew McLeod, the Davie brothers and Michael 'Magic' McLean have shown the opportunities and rewards the game can bring at an individual level.
Last Saturday the Northern Territory Football League grand final was played, with Saint Mary's winning its 30th premiership. On Sunday the spectacularly colourful Tiwi grand final was held, on Bathurst Island, with the Tuyu Buffalo defeating Mullawurri Magpies by 11 points.
Now we have the conclusion of the Top End competition, there is a week's break before the start of the North East Australian Football League, where my team, Territory Thunder, will take on clubs from Queensland and New South Wales. For the first time, Territory Thunder's opponents will include the reserve grade sides from four AFL clubs: the Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, Gold Coast Suns and Brisbane Lions.
Thunder's new coach, the talented Xavier Clarke, has recruited former AFL stars Aaron and Alwyn Davey; Jarrod Brennan, Richard Tambling, Austin Wonaeamirri and Liam Patrick, who will all boost the Territory Thunder's playing ranks.
There is no doubt one day the Territory will have its own team in the AFL. It may be a few years away but, as we grow, so too will our player base and the financial capacity to support a top-tier team. I look forward to that day—
Honourable members interjecting—
and I will not take any of the interjections here from my Queensland colleagues but I would like them to take careful note of what I am about to say, because this just shows the Territory capability. Last week I had the enormous pleasure of presenting 23-year-old Abbey Holmes with the Northern Territory Football League's women's goal-kicking medal.
Abbey had a stunning 2013-14 season, which caught the eye of all AFL fans and commentators around the country, because she set a new benchmark to which all women footballers can aspire. Playing with the Waratahs, Abbey became the first woman anywhere in Australia to kick 100 AFL goals in a season. This fantastic effort was all the more remarkable because it was only her second season playing football. In many ways Abbey is the face of Territory footy: young, fresh, bold and bursting with talent.
This weekend, I attended the 38th annual Sunbury SunFest. SunFest is one of those community events where everyone comes together to celebrate Sunbury. The festival is packed with live entertainment, local stalls, expos and activities for everyone. It is an icon in Sunbury, with generations of visitors streaming in from all over the place, including Melbourne and country Victoria. The feedback from locals is always fantastic. Darren Rooney, a local photographer, said:
Damn! What an amazing day for Sunbury. The parade, entertainment, stalls and rides at The Village Green … outstanding event today and the SunFest team should be very proud of themselves. The best thing is there is a second day of activity coming.
Jarrod Bell, one of the organisers, said it was:
… a massive weekend effort by the team at SunFest Sunbury, we can be tremendously proud of what we as a little group of volunteers, create for our community.
An opportunity to celebrate our community, a chance to highlight local talent, an opportunity to recognise service, a chance to show Sunbury off! A chance to come together and enjoy the company of friends, family and strangers in an event that is an engrained part of the Sunbury psyche, SunFest is Sunbury and Sunbury is SunFest!
These are just two examples of the community comments about SunFest, but there are plenty more. At SunFest, there was the Walk or Run for Fun, the Health and Safety Expo and the World's Greatest Shave. There were talented performances, with Sunbury Can Dance and a performance by the Divine Divas of Sunbury—they are fantastic. Every year at SunFest the festival is jam packed with live entertainment from local schools and community performing arts groups, as well as local and national acts. I was lucky enough to be entertained by the battle of school choirs. And all I can say is wow! There are some amazing singers in our neighbourhood!
Big congratulations go to Kellie Sutton for her first place in Sunbury Idol. Throughout the two-day festival, I was able to chat with hundreds of local residents, friends and neighbours. Unfortunately this year, there was an issue that kept coming up in nearly every conversation I had with my fellow festival goers—the closure of the Sunbury Police and Citizens Youth Club.
The PCYC has played a vital role in the Sunbury community since it first opened its doors in 2005. The purpose of the PCYC is to work with Sunbury's youth through exercise and physical activity. Their programs helped so many youngsters in our area, especially those who may have been heading down the wrong path in life. The PCYC was able to provide programs of activity and teach our youth discipline, respect and goodwill in our community. Unfortunately due to a severe lack of funding, the quality work of this important facility had to end when the PCYC closed on Friday, 14 March 2014.
The PCYC closure rests entirely at the feet the Abbott government. In August 2013, a $40,000 grant was announced by the former Labor government. However, upon being elected to government in September 2013, this funding was callously stripped away by the Liberal government. I wrote to the minister in November 2013, urging the government to reconsider its heartless decision but only received the typical rhetorical reply which the Abbott government uses when it turns its back on the people of Australia. The government has shut down a true community asset without even giving it a second thought, without even looking at the outstanding benefit the PCYC brought to Sunbury for about half the cost of an extravagant— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about the amazing work Rotary does, not only in our local communities but also internationally. Rotarians have been present not only for major events in history but also they have been a part of them. They are truly international. Only 16 years after being founded, Rotary had clubs on six different continents. Today, they are working together around the globe to solve some of the world's most challenging problems. Their commitment to service is ongoing. Rotary began their fight against polio in 1979 with a project goal to immunise six million children in the Philippines. By 2012, only three countries remain polio endemic, down from 125 in 1988. Rotary has reduced polio by 99 per cent and now we are closer than ever to ending this crippling disease for ever. However, a lesser known campaign by Rotary is a project started here in Australia.
The School of St Jude aims to fight poverty through education and was started by our own Gemma Sisia of country New South Wales. St Jude's is a charity funded school which provides a free, high-quality primary and secondary education to over 1,650 of the poorest but brightest in the region of Arusha, Tanzania, in East Africa. Founded in 2002, the school is located across three campuses and provides boarding for over 1,000 students, employing over 400 local Tanzanians. By developing professional skills and knowledge, students are assisted to aim high and to achieve dreams previously out of their reach. With a St Jude's education, students have a chance to escape the cycle of poverty and help not only their families and community but the whole of Tanzania.
Gemma Sisia is an Australian woman with an incredible amount of energy and determination. With $10 in her bank account, the former Guyra farm girl set up a school in Tanzania for poor but bright African children. Gemma found sponsors and support in Australia and helped build the school—literally, brick by brick—on a piece of land at the foot of Mount Meru in Tanzania. She named the school St Jude's, after the patron saint of lost causes, but do not let the name fool you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the school is in fact a great success, bringing modern education to children who would otherwise be doing manual labour.
Gemma thanks her parents for bringing her and her brothers up with the philosophy of never giving up and that anything is possible when you really put your mind to it, combined with an ethic of hard work. Gemma is thrilled with the school's success. Every year, they have an intake of 200 new children and, with that, more local employment—more bus drivers, more cooks, more cleaners and 12 to 13 more teachers. 'It sounds very romantic and really exciting, but really,' Gemma says, 'it is so hard.'
Gemma commented in an ABC interview in 2007 that the last five years had taken more out of her than her whole life put together, but she would not have it any other way. Another seven years later, Gemma is still going strong, with almost twice the number of students. Gemma has said that she could not find anything as challenging or rewarding as the knowledge that her students are going to lead Tanzania into the future. I commend Gemma and her ongoing fight to end poverty through education and Rotary Clubs for their support of this amazing project.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House notes:
(1) the importance of investing in infrastructure to improve Australia's competitiveness;
(2) that the Bruce Highway covers approximately 1,700 kilometres and is the major arterial connecting Queensland seaboard communities and economic centres;
(3) that Queensland and our nation cannot achieve full economic potential without a safe, reliable and efficient Bruce Highway; and
(4) that the Government is already delivering on its commitment to upgrade important sections of the Bruce Highway.
I second the motion.
I would like to use the Bruce Highway as the centre of my argument but talk in relation to the whole of the country. Our Treasurer, JB Hockey, was in Townsville, and we were talking about Townsville as the hub of the development of northern Australia. We were talking about why it is good for Townsville—good for our port, our airport, our north-west minerals province and our relationship with Papua New Guinea—and he said, 'That's all well and good, but when you're talking about the development of northern Australia, when you're talking about the importance of this region, please remember it is not what is good for Townsville, Northern Queensland or even northern Australia; we should be developing this because it is good for Australia.'
Improving the Bruce Highway is indeed good for Australia. If you are talking further about the development of northern Australia, you must look first and foremost at the west and north-west of Queensland. If we are going to do agriculture and improve our food bowl statistics and our role in providing food for the emerging Asian nations, the most important thing of course is water, then soil, then crops and then ports and access to markets. What we must do in relation to developing northern Australia is overlay these things. We must look at everything across the north of Australia—water, crops, soil, cattle, ports, access—and overlay the lot. That way you will narrow it down to what is important in the development of northern Australia. We must get our stuff to market, and having a safe, reliable Bruce Highway is very important to that.
The last time I drove the Bruce Highway was a couple of years ago now. I drove from Townsville down to Brisbane. I have done the trip a number of times—I am an auctioneer by trade and that was part of my territory. When you are doing it for work, you just do not notice it, because you are on the road and you are pushing through. When you are driving on the Bruce Highway as the member for Herbert, what you notice is the difference in the standard of roads. Clearly the worst stretch of road on the Bruce Highway, when I drove it last, was the stretch between Rockhampton and Miriam Vale. But North Queensland has the worst bridges in Australia. If you had a bridge in Sydney, Melbourne or on the Pacific coast somewhere that was routinely closed every night for seven days of every month for repairs and maintenance, it simply would not stack up. But that is what happens with the Silver Link Bridge in Ayr. The Haughton River bridge is probably the ugliest bridge in Australia. There is about a fag paper between you and the edge of the bridge every time you go across. People travel between Ayr and Townsville every day. When you come across, there is always a truck going the other way and you hold your breath as you go across. When you get down to the Sunshine Coast, it is three or four lanes wide with a nice big apron on the side of it.
You think to yourself that everyone says you cannot flood-proof the Bruce Highway. But my recollection is that the sea level on the Sunshine Coast is the same as the sea level in northern Queensland, so why can we not have roads that do not flood? As soon as there is a tropical low in the Coral Sea, businesses and food producers automatically start to jack up their prices because they know that their trucks are going to be parked on the side of the road for a number of days until the water goes down.
When we were talking with the state government about the roads in the 21st century and trying to repair the Bruce Highway, they were talking about the way that they had to look at safety first. I said when it comes to North Queensland you also have to go into flood-proofing and flood immunisation because it is pointless building more overtaking lanes if all it means is you are going to get to the flooded part of the road even quicker. We have to do these things at the same time. When it comes to building the roads of the north and looking after the Bruce Highway, we must ensure that we are developing a road that can stay open all the time. It is an honourable goal and something we should be pushing towards.
Whether it is a 50-50 split or an 80-20 split, whether roads are underway or whatever is being done, people in North Queensland do not care who is making the promise. All the people of Queensland care about is that it is getting done. They do not care whether it is being done by the state government; they do not care whether it is being done by Thiess; they do not care whether it is being done by John Holland; they do not care whether it is being done by Richard McDonald; they just want the road built.
The cost of manufacturing a road, the cost of production of road is getting higher and higher. We must look at driving our dollar further. What we must do all the way through is try and look at how we roll out tenders and the way that the tender process is done. Too often we find that the tender process is onerous for the smaller contractor. When organisations or government departments put through tender processes, the tender document is a couple of thousand pages long. The organisations or government departments turn the thing over and upside down, open it up and there is a figure there of $1.4 billion and another figure of $1.3 billion, so $1.3 billion gets the tender. At the end of a project they ask: did you have your trainees there? Did you have all of these things? And the contractors say no, not really. What are you going to do? You are not going to rip up the road. These guys continually go along like that. What we must do is make sure that the tender process is open to everyone to have a chop at it.
I see the member for Grayndler sitting opposite me and you will not find too many people who can argue about roads better than the member for Grayndler. No doubt you will quote me again because I did say in 2010 that the Labor government spent more than the Howard government on roads. What I have also said is that the Howard government spent more than the Hawke-Keating government. The Hawke-Keating government probably spent more than the Fraser government. The Fraser government could not have spent more than the Whitlam government—no-one spent more than the Whitlam government. We will spend more than the Labor government on the roads.
What we will do is try and make sure that we get better value for dollar. The member for Grayndler will obviously agree with me that the cost of a kilometre of road is getting astronomically expensive. What we do have to watch out for is that we are not just pulling projects away. The biggest disappointment in my time was after Cyclone Yasi and the floods of the south-east corner. The then Labor minister for transport allowed the funding for the Vantassel Street upgrade to be pulled in 2011. All of that money was shifted down to the south-east corner to help with the flood reconstruction. That was the thing that upset most North Queenslanders. It was an absolute crime because Vantassel Street is a flood prone road, so we shifted flood funding in North Queensland to go and help in south-east Queensland. It is getting done now. Ring Road stage 4 is getting done.
The greatest thing that will happen in this term and next term if we are re-elected is the Haughton River bridge. This term we will be going through site works and getting the road works done to realign the highway. When you come along the Haughton from Ayr, it is a big sweeping left-hand turn and across the most narrow of bridges. Twice during the last three years, that bridge has been a fag paper away from being shut down because it has been scoured so badly. It is a terrible bridge. It is a big, strong river, and we have to watch out with what we are doing there. We will be fixing that bridge and we will be replacing that bridge.
We have to address the costs again. We have to address the costs of road manufacture. We have to address the costs of why we are doing these things. We also have to deal with people's perception of what roads are. Some of us in this place were brought up in the country. When I was brought up—and I was brought up in a small country town; I was born in Quilpie and raised in Texas—you used to be able to just look forward on the highway and you would know when you were coming up to a stretch of bitumen because you were driving along the roads. Our perception these days is that we do not drive anywhere that is a dirt road. We go down the occasional footpath or the occasional driveway at people's places, but that is the only time we see a dirt road. So our expectations are a lot higher now, but that does not mean it is wrong.
North Queensland have about 0.8 per cent of the population of Australia, but we produce nearly two per cent of the country's GDP. If we are to develop the north of the country, if we are to get our goods to market, if we are to become the powerhouse that we fully expect, we must have the roads of the 21st century to push it through. I am pleased that we are in a position now where we are in an 80-20 split where the federal government will pony up the money, will make sure that the roads are built and will push forward with common sense. I know that the member for Dawson will also back me up here that the roadwork between Townsville and Mackay is integral to everything.
I move:
That item (4) be omitted, and the following be inserted:
(4) that the former Labor Government quadrupled funding for the Bruce Highway, and
(5) that the Member for Herbert stated in 2011 that 'I'll give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce Highway than we did before'.
I do that in order to put some reality into this debate. The reality is that, under the former federal Labor government, we increased infrastructure spending for Queenslanders from $143 per capita to $314 per capita. We quadrupled the amount of money that went to Queensland for infrastructure, and nowhere benefited more than the Bruce Highway.
The Bruce Highway is a critical highway. It is the main artery for traffic movement up and down the Queensland coast, serving dozens of dynamic towns and cities over the 1,650 kilometres between Brisbane and Cairns. It is important because Queensland is the only state in this nation where more people live in regional areas than in the capital. Because the Bruce Highway travels all the way up the coast, serving all of these coastal regions, it is surely the state's most important piece of infrastructure. That is why we prioritised it. We need this road to be safe. We also need it to be efficient, because the efficient movement of people and goods adds to economic productivity, which creates jobs.
For years, the Bruce Highway has been a critical political battleground, so today let us cut through to the facts. During the almost 12 years of the Howard government, the Commonwealth spent $1.3 billion on the Bruce Highway. During the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments, the Commonwealth created investments of $5.7 billion. That is the undeniable truth. Despite the big-talking promises of the now Prime Minister ahead of last year's election, the record of what has actually been spent or committed rather than what has been promised proves that, while the coalition talks about the highway, it has failed to follow through.
During its time in office, the coalition slashed federal road funding by $2 billion. The fact is that actions speak louder than words. When it comes to the Bruce Highway, we certainly delivered, which was acknowledged by the member for Herbert on 5 March 2011. Indeed, in the unamended clause 4 of this motion as moved by the member for Herbert, it makes it clear, because he says:
… the Government is already delivering on its commitment to upgrade important sections of the Bruce Highway.
All of those sections that are underway are sections that have been underway as a result of the investment of the former government, investment of which I am extremely proud. Let us have a look at Townsville roads: $95 million for the port access road, completed; $55 million to duplicate the Douglas arterial, completed; $160 million to complete the fourth and final section of the city ring road; and $110 million to duplicate the Bruce between Vantassel Street and Flinders Highway. That comes on top of other investment into Townsville, including $16 million for the redevelopment of Flinders Street.
When it comes to other projects on the Bruce Highway, there are the upgrade of the southern approaches to Sarina; the construction of the new higher bridge over the Isis River that the former member for Hinkler regarded as the No. 1 priority. The former member for Hinkler acknowledged that it was the federal Labor government that delivered what the previous coalition government had not. There was duplication of section B between Cooroy and Curra, described by the former transport minister, who was also the local member, the member for Wide Bay, as the worst section of highway in Australia. It was fixed by Labor. There was a resurfacing of the Nambour bypass, elimination of 63 notorious black spots, 12 new and upgraded rest stops and construction of 11 additional overtaking lanes. That is what you can do when you quadruple the budget.
Projects underway include the construction of a new interchange at the intersection between the Bruce and Dawson highways; the Calliope crossroads project near Gladstone; the upgrade of the intersection between Bruce and Capricorn highways, known as the Yeppen roundabout; the upgrade of the southern approach to Mackay, flattening and straightening the Bruce Highway over the Cardwell Range; projects associated with the Burdekin road safety audit; upgrade of the southern approach to Cairns; strengthening of the bridge over the Burdekin; the straightening and widening of the Bruce Highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road and across Back Creek Range; the straightening of the Bruce Highway just south of Gin Gin and upgrading the intersection with the Bundaberg to Gin Gin road; straightening and raising the Bruce Highway between Sandy Corner and Collinsons Lagoon; upgrading the Pumicestone Road interchange, including the construction of a new higher overpass over the Bruce; duplication of the Bruce Highway between the Cooroy South interchange and Sankeys Road, known as section A of that area.
Then there is further funding which has been committed in the budget: the Mackay northern access upgrade, the Mackay ring road, the Rockhampton northern access corridor, the North Queensland flood immunity package, Caloundra Road to Sunshine Motorway, Gateway Motorway to Caboolture, the pavement widening from St Lawrence to Bowen, the Cairns southern access corridor, the Bruce Highway south of Home Hill to north of Ingham, Cooroy to Curra sections C and D and the Black Spots Program.
These are projects Labor delivered, completed, projects underway and projects that were in the budget. There were no additional commitments from the former opposition, now the government, during the election campaign. The fact is that we quadrupled funding for the Bruce Highway, and that is consistent with what the Labor Party does in government. The Labor Party government is prepared to get on with the business of nation building. Those opposite last time they were in office cut the budget by $2 billion. This time around they are saying that new infrastructure spending will be dependent upon state governments privatising assets; that is what they are saying. They should listen to the Treasurer, but of course they tend not to listen to each other; they tend to engage in PR exercises. Yesterday we saw the extraordinary performance of the Prime Minister, with the New South Wales Premier, standing in front of a banner. The only thing that was new about that project was the banner. It was an old project that had been fully signed off by the former Labor government, the New South Wales government and Transurban for a road project in Sydney, the F3 to M2.
I am very proud of the work that we put into the Bruce Highway. A quadrupling of funding needs to be acknowledged as a major benefit to road safety and to improving productivity and the freight network. Yes, there is more to be done because the Bruce Highway is a very long arterial and it cannot be completed in a short period of time. There is no doubt, in my view, having travelled without media on the Bruce to have a look for myself, that there are major problems that require further upgrades. This requires the Commonwealth government and the state government—and the Newman government talked a big game prior to the election but have delivered nothing in terms of additional funding for the Bruce Highway since they were elected. They need to be held to account rather than let off the hook by the federal government, regardless of the political party in government federally. If you let state governments off the hook, you will see less investment overall.
We inherited a substantial infrastructure deficit. We set about ensuring that that deficit was dealt with, and that is why I am moving an amendment to the member for Herbert's motion, in order to make the motion more accurately reflect what has been the recent history regarding investment into the Bruce Highway.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
It is always scintillating to hear the fairytales from the member for Grayndler—like Aesop's fables, Albo's fables—when it comes to the Bruce Highway. But I will give him this: he is one of the few members opposite who knows where the Bruce Highway is and can probably find it on a map. He said that he has driven it. He has probably seen a lot more of it than most of his colleagues, who may have seen a few bits of the Bruce Highway—probably from about 40,000 feet on their way from one photo opportunity to the next. The reason they fly to these photo opportunities is that none of them live anywhere near the Bruce Highway. That is the reality. The former minister spoke about Vantassel Street to Flinders Highway and it all being some sort of Labor achievement along with the Sandy Corner to Collinsons Lagoon upgrade in my electorate. The only reason those projects are on the table is that the Liberal-National coalition and I held the government to account when they were trying to pull both of those projects off the agenda.
The Bruce Highway, for the benefit of those opposite, is the main transport artery of Queensland. In all its glory, it stretches 1,700 kilometres from Cairns in the Far North to Brisbane in the south-east—1,700 kilometres and not one metre of it is represented by a member from the Labor Party. They need to ask themselves why that is. We speak of the Bruce as a highway running from the north to the south not because we live in the north but because that is the direction in which the nation's wealth is carried. We create the wealth in the north and the Bruce Highway delivers it to the capital cities in the south. It has been seen as one-way traffic, until now. The Liberal-National government are reversing the flow and are committed to delivering far and away the largest investment in transport infrastructure the Bruce Highway has ever seen. We listened to locals, councils, businesses, automobile clubs and safety groups like the Road Accident Action Group in my hometown of Mackay. We listened to the Queensland government and what they said was required to bring the highway up to scratch. We saw the Liberal-National government in Queensland commit an additional $1 billion over 10 years to the Bruce. And before the 2013 election, this Liberal-National coalition committed to investing $6.7 billion over 10 years to the Bruce Highway. That is in stark contrast to what the Labor Party put on the table—in fact, it was $2.6 billion more than the Labor Party's commitment. Since then, the Liberal-National government has reaffirmed its commitment and is getting on with the job of delivering its promises.
We are getting on with the job of fixing the worst spots of the Bruce Highway, including projects in my electorate like upgrading the dangerous Haughton River bridge in the Burdekin and fixing flood-prone areas like Yellow Gin Creek near Townsville and Sandy Gully near Bowen, where it only takes a cane toad to take a whiz on the side of the road for that highway to be cut. We are funding planning work on the Goorganga Plains in relation to a serious flooding issue that cuts off the Whitsunday Coast Airport from the Whitsunday Coast—an issue that the Queensland Labor government at the time did not even recognise existed in their 2011 report on the Bruce Highway. But locals were acutely aware of the problem.
The Liberal-National coalition know because we actually took the time to talk to them and to experience the Bruce Highway firsthand. In 2012, along with the then shadow transport minister and now Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and Deputy Prime Minister, I drove every single one of the 1,700 kilometres of the Bruce Highway. Our convoy included about 11 Liberal Party and National Party MPs, state and federal, who have sections of the Bruce Highway in their electorate. We spoke with locals to seek advice and to help us formulate a plan to fix the dangerous black spots, to fix the flood-prone areas and to fix the congestion.
One part of the plan is to ease congestion and get heavy vehicles off local roads with construction of the Mackay Ring Road. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent $10 million on a feasibility study on the Mackay Ring Road and then did nothing. The member for Herbert said to me just before that Labor always finds it easy to put ink on paper, but it is different to seeing bitumen on the road.
When it is on paper, it is already built!
Yes, it is already built when it is on paper apparently. The study finished in 2012-13 and then not one cent was allocated for the next financial year to actually start the project. Despite protests from the member for Grayndler, the fact remains that his budget put the ring road in the too-hard basket. That is not surprising, coming from the former regional affairs minister, representing an inner metropolitan Sydney seat, who decided that metropolitan Sydney was actually a 'regional' area deserving of 'regional' funding.
It is that basic lack of understanding—that lack of recognition and that lack of appreciation for real regional Australia and infrastructure like the Bruce Highway—that left the Labor Party caught short. We are getting on with providing the infrastructure and funding needed to ensure that this remains the engine room of regional Australia. (Time expired)
I am a bit of a ring-in here today for Mr Palmer, the member for Fairfax—
An opposition member: He was too busy.
He obviously retreated back home to lick his wounds after his not-too-successful stint on Saturday. That having been said, I am more than happy to speak about the Bruce Highway and the coalition's commitment more generally to infrastructure—
A government member: The Bruce Highway isn't in Perth; it is in Queensland.
I know that, but I am a member of the Australian parliament; I have an interest across Australia. I have a particular interest, as one would expect, in Western Australia, but I quite rightfully need to range across the full range of topics.
I was interested in the contribution from the previous speaker and the claim that Labor had just put pen to paper and not actually built. We are going to look at some of the Bruce Highway projects that indeed were completed by the federal Labor government during our last term: the duplication of the Douglas arterial road in Townsville; the upgrade to the southern approaches to Sarina; the construction of a new, higher bridge over the Isis River; the duplication of section B between Cooroy and Curra; the resurfacing of the Nambour bypass; the elimination of 63 notorious black spots; 12 new and upgraded rest stops; and the construction of 11 additional overtaking lanes. I look forward—as part of being on the northern Australia committee—to going up and admiring all these great works that were done under federal Labor. My colleague here will go through all the other projects that were not only planned but are also underway.
There has been an enormous amount of financial commitment made by Labor and an enormous range of infrastructure projects connected with the Bruce Highway that have been delivered—not just pen on paper but committed to early on in the term of government and then enacted. What we saw in the Howard years was a massive slashing of road funding, notwithstanding all of the language and—
A government member: How about the six lanes at Caboolture?
You slashed $2 billion! You didn't do the Ipswich motorway; you did nothing like that.
Mate, you weren't even here.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
I am quite happy to have my colleague the member for Blair here providing—
I bet you are!
I just want to use this brief opportunity to explain how difficult it was to get money out of the Howard government for even very worth projects. There was a project that was initially called the Peel deviation; it was a deviation around the city of Mandurah. I think the analogy is clear. We started writing letters to the then minister back in 2001, as soon as we got in government, saying, 'We know this is a very big project. This requires a lot of long-term planning. It is not something that you're going to be able to immediately put money into, but we have a target of starting this project around 2006. We want to start a dialogue with you in 2001 so that by 2006 we can both contribute money to this very important project.' I tell you, it was like pulling teeth. They would write back saying, 'No, not interested. We're not going to talk to you about this.' As a model, dealing with the Howard government in the roads portfolio was a lesson on how not to develop federal-state relationships. We started off from a very respectful point of view, recognising their need to plan their budget over the longer term, but all we got was rebuff after rebuff after rebuff really for about three to four years. Then they could see that this was becoming a massive political issue and they started jumping up and down and demanded that it be done yesterday. (Time expired)
I hoped to be following the member for Fairfax in this debate. I thought that here was an opportunity for the member for Fairfax and the member for Fisher, the two members who represent the greater part of the Sunshine Coast, to be on a unity ticket pledging our support for building a stronger Bruce Highway to support the economy of the Sunshine Coast. I notice the member for Perth leaving the chamber. I congratulate her on stepping in at the last minute, because at the last minute the member for Fairfax informed the opposition whip that he was 'too busy'. Our whip rang to ask about it and was told that the member for Fairfax had cancelled. So I thank the member for Perth for at least giving to the parliament the time that the member for Fairfax simply could not.
This is an issue that is pivotal to the success of the Sunshine Coast. The issue is whether the Bruce Highway, the lifeline between us and our international airport in Brisbane and our ports, and all of the goods that flow between the two, can be upgraded and what we as a community and as private members of parliament, regardless of our political persuasion, can do to get the money that we need to do that.
There has been a lot of discussion this morning about the past. The public is actually interested in the future. They want to know what is going to happen. There have been mistakes in the past. There has been neglect in the past. I know that my colleagues have already put on the table a rock-solid 10-year commitment of the coalition Tony Abbott-led government in partnership with Campbell Newman on what is the traditional 20-80 split to put in over $8.6 billion. The reality is that there are huge issues with the Bruce Highway that go to safety and to flood mitigation and there are issues that affect my community on the Sunshine Coast. In that area we have already committed an additional $1.4 billion.
It is not enough. Some of the planning that has been done up until now has not been adequate. Last Friday, I was in Brisbane with the department, going over this, putting together a working group with the federal and state governments so that we can get it right. Right now, $13 million is being spent on what is called the western service road near the Aussie World Ettamogah pub. Not surprisingly, some of my local constituents have been saying to me, 'Where does that road actually go to?' The reality is that it does not go anywhere. We spent $13 million and what we have done is remove one little black spot—which is important—just south of the Mooloolaba exit. But, with a bit better planning and rescheduling money, we could have continued that road on and, in doing so, given us better access to the Bruce Highway for the northbound traffic, taken some of the traffic off the road which comes back on to the main Bruce Highway to go to Mooloolaba and Maroochydore—practical steps. That is the role that I want to play, and that is what so disappoints me about the member for Fairfax not bothering to take the time to be here.
The Sunshine Coast needs all of its MPs to work together as one to make this happen. Neglecting their responsibility—and the member for Fairfax neglecting his responsibility—to take up the challenge that has been put by the member for Herbert to come and speak in the people's palace, the parliament, and have our say and express the desires, the needs and the aspirations of the people of Fisher and Fairfax is simply not good enough.
An honourable member interjecting—
As I am reminded by my honourable colleague, he is down to speak today but he is not here. I have not been out attacking the member for Fairfax, because I know that it is important that we work together. But, when we are given the opportunity to be on a unity ticket, sitting on opposite sides of the parliament, and to speak on behalf of our constituency, that is exactly what the public demand and that is not what has happened today when that opportunity has availed itself.
In the brief moment left to me I want to inform the people of the Sunshine Coast that the coalition government is committed to doing the work on the Mooloolaba and Caloundra exits and the Bells Creek interchange is underway. I am going to work with the community with the following priorities. To make sure that the loop road where the public currently have to cross when coming out of Mooloolaba to head north—which is dangerous and is inconvenient—is done quickly is our No. 1 priority. No 2: we have a big job-generating potential around Aussie World and the Ettamogah Pub and the thing that is stymieing that is the on-ramps and off-ramps to the Bruce Highway. That is my No. 2 priority. I might say that the buses that the public would travel on to go to that tourism precinct cannot go there today because of the on-ramp not being safe enough for TransLink. I want to get those things done now. I want to work with my colleagues to make sure that we deliver for the Bruce Highway today and into the future.
The member for Fisher talked about mistakes and the neglect of the past. There are a number of projects in Queensland that he could be referring to, such as the Ipswich Motorway and the failure of the coalition to support that and their vote against its upgrade repeatedly in this place; their vote against all the infrastructure projects after the floods in south-east Queensland and northern Queensland; their failure to support the Blacksoil Interchange and the Warrego Highway; projects in south-east Queensland; their ripping out of $2 billion from the roads and public infrastructure budget when they came to power in 1996; and their failure during that whole time in terms of the Bruce Highway—putting in only $1.3 billion across 12 years of their tenure in the context of a federal Labor government committing and actually spending $5.7 billion on the Bruce Highway. We increased the infrastructure spend per Queenslander from $143 to $314 per Queenslander. We committed $60 billion. There are projects all up and down the Bruce Highway—important projects for south-east Queensland as well as northern Queensland. It is important for jobs, productivity and economic development. Queensland is the most decentralised state in the country.
It is interesting and quite galling that the coalition should talk about infrastructure when in the time that I have been in this place they have voted against infrastructure spends in Queensland again, again and again when it comes to nation building. Again and again coalition LNP members in this place have voted against upgrades for important rail, road and port projects in Queensland. But this is not new. During the whole time of the former Howard government, during their 12 years in office, they did not fund a single public transport project in Queensland—not one. In contrast, there are the Moreton Bay rail link and Gold Coast Rapid Transit projects.
We have a very important project for all of Queensland, the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. It is a very important project for all of Queensland and yet the coalition will not support it. The Brisbane City Council supports it, the Queensland government supports it, and the coalition has ripped away over $700 million committed for that particular project.
When it comes to the Bruce Highway, the coalition have form, because their colleagues and comrades in George Street, Brisbane, said they would spend $1 billion on the Bruce Highway. But guess what? They did not do that at all. In fact they have committed only a couple of hundred million across a few years. When we were in government our commitment to the Bruce Highway—and we took it to the last election—was greater and more short-term, in terms of bringing the funding forward, than the position the coalition took at the last election. Their money was off in the never-never. It was Campbell Newman and the LNP, in George Street, Brisbane—it was a great promise when in opposition, but when they get into power what did they do? They cut, cut and cut.
That is the case also when you look at the fiscal budget impact of coalition policies. There are projects they promised everywhere. Have a look at what they released before the election and then cut funding for. It is not just the projects for which they said they would do it but also for projects for which they hinted they might do it. In my area, and the member for Oxley's area and the member for Moreton's area, they claimed they would do that final section of the Ipswich Motorway. They matched Labor's rhetoric and commitment to the final section of the Ipswich Motorway—$276 million to kick-start the Darra to Rocklea section. Labor had committed and built $2.5 billion on the other parts of the Ipswich Motorway. But guess what? The coalition, as they have done again and again, whether they are in power in Queensland or nationally, cut the funding—just look at the fiscal budget impact of coalition policies. How much? About $65 million, not $276 million.
It is the same thing with the Bruce Highway—neglect and mistakes, as the member for Fisher talked about before. That is what they were guilty of when they were in government and that is what they are guilty of now. We will see when the people of Central, South-East and North Queensland get the funding they need and deserve on the Bruce Highway. We should remember one thing about the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. It is the section of the highway the member for Wide Bay used to talk about always, both in Queensland and down here in Canberra, but he could not get it done when he was the transport minister under the Howard coalition government. We started it. The section is done and the funding is committed. It is a classic example of why Labor and only Labor is committed to infrastructure in Queensland. (Time expired)
I rise with a great deal of pleasure to support my colleague the member for Herbert's motion today. I choked a little when I listened to the contribution from the member for Blair, who was trying to suggest that all of these problems go back to the Howard era. Back in that time the funding from the federal government went directly to the state government, under Beattie and Bligh. As a member of the Howard government I remember expressing a great deal of frustration at the fact that we would allocate funding for a particular project and find that the state governments did not even have it on their priority list, let alone do any of the work associated with the planning, because at the end of the day it is the state governments that do the planning and enter into the contracts to do the construction. To give you a classic example, for years I was criticised by government for not doing anything on the Murray River section, which is down near Tully. They were saying it was all the federal government's fault that there was no money. I went to the Prime Minister at one stage and said, 'Let's call their bluff.' We actually allocated a very significant amount of money to the project, and the state government had to come back cap in hand and say, 'Sorry, we did not have that on our planning priority list for another eight years. If you want us to do it you are going to have to give us a million dollars to start planning it and another couple of million dollars to look at hydrology.' So there was no way in the world they could have done the work, even with the money that was allocated.
If you start reading a few headlines in the local daily newspaper for my region, the Cairns Post, on 31 August 2009 there was this: 'Bruce Highway a backroad killer'. I wonder who was in government then, I ask the member for Herbert. On 5 September 2009, less than a week later, the headline read 'Bruce Highway horror crash leaves town mourning'. These are the sorts of things we had when Labor was in government federally and in the state, so any suggestion that this has been a problem that has been created by us or by the Newman government is just an absolute nonsense.
More recently the tone of the headlines has been: January 2012, 'LNP will act quickly on Bruce'; April 2012, 'LNP moves on Bruce Highway'; July 2013, '$8.5 billion highway pledge Abbott 'fix' for Bruce'; October 2013, 'Road to a better highway'; and November 2013, 'Push to spruce Bruce'. So there has been an acknowledgement that there is now a focus.
Nationally, the coalition government is committed to delivering the biggest infrastructure agenda in Australia's history, through our $35.5 billion Infrastructure Investment Program. Of all the major projects under this program, I am extremely pleased to see that the Bruce Highway upgrade gets the biggest financial commitment of $6.7 billion. That is incredible, and it shows a very significant commitment from our side of politics.
When I have a look at this, additional funding will be required but I think that this is a very significant start. You have got an area of 1,700 kilometres between Cairns and Brisbane. It is the major arterial road connecting Queensland's eastern seaboard to economic centres. The North Queensland Road Alliance estimates that the Bruce Highway contributes $11.5 billion per annum to the Queensland economy and supports something like 60,000 jobs in North Queensland.
We have to say to you: Queensland government figures show that on average, every year, nine locations along the highway are closed for more than 48 hours due to flooding, and six of these locations are closed for more than five days a year. This causes economic paralysis in our region, and businesses that rely on road freight are stuck without supplies. It is absolutely critical that we make sure we get stuck into this and get the job done.
I am pleased to see that $700 million will be spent mainly in my area. That includes $300 million for the three stages of the Cairns southern access corridor—and some work had already started under Labor. Unfortunately, as is typical with Labor, they did not budget correctly so we have got to take money out to finish the job that they had committed to start but never put the money into.
There is also $385 million for the Edmonton to Gordonvale duplication, which is absolutely critical. Another area that we have to focus on, and I will continue to push very strongly for, is the second access to Cairns. We are certainly working with local and state governments who are prepared to listen and plan into the future, because it opens up opportunities, and I look forward to getting that— (Time expired)
I am a longstanding member of this House on the record as always congratulating any infrastructure spending, regardless of who it comes from or where it goes in Australia, because I believe in infrastructure, just like the Labor Party. I welcome this very belated commitment to infrastructure and, particularly to the Bruce Highway, regardless of who it is from. Even if it is from the LNP, even in Queensland, I still welcome it. It is just a pity they could not be bothered to do it when they were in government before.
The trend here is always the same: the coalition are only interested in roads and infrastructure when they are in opposition. In government they just talk about it. They have had plenty of opportunity. I recall when the Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, was the transport minister for a very long time. The Bruce Highway just happened to be the major road through his electorate, but of course it is only important when you are in opposition! Once they got to government and he was the minister, the LNP and the Liberals, and Warren Truss in particular, just ignored it. When they got to government, they slashed the infrastructure spending by $2 billion—very significant at the time—and it meant that nothing got done on the Bruce Highway, a great pity.
So now, when we get all these belated commitments and promises, I welcome them. I welcome them from Tony Abbott and the Liberals, but we are yet to see the colour of the money. Don't forget there are the slashes to come in the budget. Don't forget there is the Commission of Audit. So whatever they promise today, let's see what happens tomorrow. If it does come to fruition, I will welcome it. Why wouldn't you?
In government Labor delivered. This is an area where we spend. They can belly laugh—there is plenty of belly laughing on the other side—but the facts are the facts, not just what was in the last budget. We actually delivered over many, many budgets, unlike the never-never future commitments and promises from the Liberals. In fact, on the Bruce Highway, an unprecedented $5.7 billion was spent—more during the term of Labor than the whole term of the Howard government; real money spent on real projects.
Just in case people think I am making it up, let me list what we spent the money on: the duplication of the Douglas arterial at Townsville; the upgrade of the southern approaches to Sarina; construction of a new, higher bridge over the Isis River; duplication of section B between Cooroy and Curra; resurfacing of the Nambour bypass; elimination of 63 notorious black spots; 12 new and upgraded rest stops; and construction of 11 additional overtaking lanes.
Then there are projects currently underway, being done while we were in office when the changeover happened, though I am sure the LNP will try and take credit for them. The reality is that we funded them; they were started under us because we made the commitment. They include construction of a new interchange at the intersection between the Bruce and Dawson highways; the Calliope Crossroads near Gladstone; upgrade of the intersection between the Bruce and Capricorn highways, the Yeppen roundabout; upgrade of the southern approach to Mackay; flattening and straightening of the Bruce Highway over the Cardwell Range; projects associated with the Burdekin road safety audit, including the upgrade of intersections along Edward Street in Ayr between Queen Street and Jones Street and construction of two new overtaking lanes south of Home Hill; upgrade of the southern approach to Cairns; and strengthening of the bridge over the Burdekin.
I can imagine that on the other side they are getting tired and bored of me listing them, because it is a very long list of achievements under Labor. The list continues: straightening and widening of the Bruce Highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road, and across Back Creek Range; straightening of the Bruce Highway just south of Gin Gin and upgrading of the intersection with the Bundaberg-Gin Gin Road; straightening and raising of the Bruce Highway between Sandy Corner and Collinsons Lagoon; upgrading of the Pumicestone Road interchange, including the construction of a new higher overpass over the Bruce Highway; and duplication of the Bruce Highway between the Cooroy South interchange and Sankeys Road, also known as Section A. The list goes on and on. These are the things that we did.
I am yet to see the list, the very short list, of the things that the Liberals are going to do, but I welcome it. I will not get political about it, I just want to see it done. I do not care who it comes from. The colour of your money is as good as the colour of anyone else's money. We want to see projects delivered. Please go ahead and deliver. I am from the western corridor of Brisbane, and we know roads, because for a long time the Liberals when they were in government refused to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway. They thought it was a project too far, too complicated, too expensive. It never would have been done. But the moment we got to government in 2007 we committed $2.5 billion to that road, and it was delivered under budget and under time—one of the best projects in Australian history, one of the biggest and most complex under full road conditions. We did that and I am really proud of that. It never would have happened under the Howard Liberal government. Today we would still be arguing over it. The reality is that Labor delivers on infrastructure; the Liberals promise it. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in support of the original motion moved by my colleague the member for Herbert, Mr Ewen Jones. The Bruce Highway is the single most important piece of public infrastructure in Queensland and in my electorate of Hinkler. Sadly, it was also the only Australian highway to be named recently as one of the world's most dangerous highways. The list of the world's worst roads was compiled by UK based Driving Experience and includes the likes of the trans-Siberian road in Russia, the Nairobi-Nakuru highway in Kenya and the Federal Highway 1 in Mexico. Also on the list is New Zealand's Skippers Canyon, and anyone who has been to Queenstown will be familiar with Skippers Canyon. It is single-lane dirt and rubble track that winds its way along some of the sheerest cliffs you will ever see. That is what Queensland's Bruce Highway has been compared to. Covering a stretch of approximately 1,700 kilometres, the Bruce Highway represents less than eight per cent of Australia's national highways but accounts for the almost a fifth of the country's road toll. As reported in the Courier-Mail, the RACQ predicts that up to 400 people will lose their lives on the Bruce Highway over the next decade if action is not taken.
That is why I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in a road that was sorely neglected by both state and federal Labor governments. We have committed $2.6 billion more than was promised by Labor. The coalition's Bruce Highway plan includes 16 existing projects and 45 new projects, bringing the total investment to $6.7 billion over 10 years. The package represents an 80-20 split between the Commonwealth and Queensland state government, putting an end to the unproductive and politically driven disputes between the various levels of government. This includes major upgrades and realignments, flood immunity improvements and strengthening and widening works. It also includes a range of safety measures to target crash black spots and provide additional overtaking areas and rest areas.
In my electorate, locals will share in about $1.1 billion in funding for safety and black-spot funding including those overtaking lanes. Eight million dollars will be spent to plan and acquire land for a heavy-vehicle bypass near Childers. One hundred and three million dollars for the upgrade at Saltwater Creek near Maryborough will also benefit Hinkler constituents, and just last month I turned the first sod on an $8 million federally funded project to upgrade the Bruce Highway at three intersections just south of Childers. More than 6,500 motorists, including many heavy-vehicle operators, use this section of the highway in my electorate every single day. Expected to be finished by the end of the year, the works will cater for those growing traffic volumes, especially during peak periods, by extending the dedicated right-hand turn lane at the Lucketts Road intersection and installing traffic signals at the Goodwood Road intersection. To cater for these new signals, the Butchers Road intersection will also be moved a short distance to the south to ensure that safety is maintained. The original scope of works involved the removal of a right-turn access at the Lucketts Road intersection in accordance with a 2010 coroner's recommendation. But, after listening to the community, we came up with an upgrade that will maintain all traffic movements at Lucketts Road while still achieving the desired safety outcome.
The Bruce Highway is the major artery connecting Queensland's coastal communities and the economic centres between Brisbane and Cairns. The North Queensland Roads Alliance estimates that the Bruce Highway contributes $11.5 billion per annum to the Queensland economy, and the highway is routinely cut off due to flooding at up to 33 sites. The 10-year Bruce Highway Action Plan produced by the Queensland government estimated that on average, every year, nine locations along the Bruce Highway are closed for more than 48 hours and six locations are closed for more than five days due to flooding.
If you are in the fresh food industry, 48 hours is a long time to be cut off from your markets. The two major industries in my electorate are horticulture and seafood. With no container port located nearby, refrigerated trucks are their only method of transport. The poor condition of the road is also damaging to the products themselves. Not only must growers battle high input costs like electricity, weather, pests, weeds and diseases, but also, by the time they get their soft produce—strawberries and blueberries—to market, they have also lost some of their profits due to potholes and wash-outs in the road.
While not physically located directly on the Bruce, the two major towns in my electorate are both dependent on the Bruce Highway for access in and out to the north and to the south. Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and all of the smaller communities in Hinkler rely on the Bruce Highway for medical transportation, particularly during emergencies. Tourists flock to the region each year to watch whales and turtles in their natural environment. The condition of the road is causing unnecessary wear and tear on vehicles and caravans, and the busiest shop in Gin Gin, which is in Flynn, is the tyre repair shop—every single week.
Imagine what could be done to improve the Bruce Highway with the $1.5 million per hour we are spending on interest to service Labor's debt. Queensland and our nation cannot achieve their full economic potential without a safe, reliable and efficient Bruce Highway, so we are delivering on our commitment to upgrade important sections of the Bruce. With any luck, within a decade the Bruce Highway will no longer be referred to by the Australian Automobile Association as one of the most dangerous roads in Australia.
I rise today to stress the importance of good governments investing in infrastructure that advances Australia's competitiveness and creates jobs for the future. The Bruce Highway takes its name from Stanley Bruce, one of the only two prime ministers in Australia's history who have lost their seats at a federal election. The other one, of course, is John Howard. The Bruce Highway does not run through my electorate, but it is obviously used by my constituents, and the community is well aware of the importance of delivering a safe, reliable and efficient highway—particularly one of my businesses, the Brisbane Markets, which distributes all the fresh fruit and vegies throughout Queensland; in fact, throughout Australia. It relies significantly on the Bruce Highway in bringing in produce that it can sell. Also, being married to a Cairns girl, I know the Bruce Highway very well, and I have friends in Townsville as well. In my time as a union organiser from 2000 through to 2004, I covered an area from Brisbane basically up to Rockhampton and Moranbah, so I spent a lot of time—too much time, in fact—on the Bruce Highway.
So I was horrified to see recently that it had been ranked as the world's 22nd most dangerous highway, and the fatalities are something that we on both sides of the chamber agree should be eliminated wherever possible. Obviously, those deaths are an economic cost and a horrible tragedy for families. This 1,700-kilometre-long highway represents less than eight per cent of our national highways but, sadly, accounts for almost a fifth of Australia's death toll, something that we should be doing all we can to change. Obviously upgrades are the way to do it. Anyone who has driven that highway knows—and I have seen this many times myself—that, if you are stuck going up or down the highway behind a couple of caravans or a couple of campervans of British tourists, or tourists from around the world, it can create problems. Overtaking lanes are obviously important. As people get frustrated—they may have goods to deliver—they make rash decisions.
Any time that that road is cut, due to floods or accidents, it damages the economic potential of the area. Sadly, the coalition has undelivered on its commitment to fund the upgrade of the Bruce Highway. I think we should change its name to the Never-Never Highway, because during the time of the Howard government, nearly 12 years, they spent only $1.3 billion on the Bruce Highway, even at a time when the transport minister had the highway going right through his backyard. That was a tragedy.
What did the Labor Party do? We committed nearly $6 billion over six years in government—most of it spent, some of it being spent now, with people putting shovels in the ground for Labor funded projects, as we have heard from the earlier speeches. Let us compare: the Howard government, $1 billion over 12 years, and the Labor government, $6 billion over six years. The pathetic response we have got from the state LNP government and the federal LNP government now is $6 billion over 10 years. I was an English teacher, but even I can do the maths there. It just does not add up. It is a typical example of those opposite supporting it in principle—but obviously infrastructure is all about putting a shovel into the ground and achieving a real result.
We have a self-declared 'infrastructure Prime Minister'—self-declared because he has not actually done anything except white-ant the NBN. We might as well call him the breakdancing Prime Minister. He does not do any breakdancing either. It has as much relevance as calling him the infrastructure Prime Minister. We have seen it time and time again. I had a look back at the first speech of my predecessor as the member for Moreton, back in March or April 1996, where he talked about upgrading the Coopers Plains rail crossing in the electorate. He said it was something that was going to happen, but then for 12 years nothing happened. Nothing happened at all. I think this is what we will see with the Bruce Highway—fine, noble sounding words but no dollars; fine sentiments but no people actually put on the ground to boost the infrastructure.
With a highway that creates so many deaths and that is such a route for tourists, for people going to work in the coalfields, for people holidaying, for people bringing fruit and vegetables down to the markets of Queensland and south-east Australia, we need to do all that we can to flood-proof it, all that we can to make sure that it is safe and all that we can to make sure that there are no more fatalities.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of a well-resourced dental system in improving the oral health of our most vulnerable citizens; and
(b) that well trained and well supported dental graduates are critical to improving the oral health of our nation;
(2) shows extreme concern at the Government's announcement to cut $40 million from the Voluntary Dental Graduate Program (VDGP); and
(3) calls on the Government to reverse this decision and ensure that the 36 public dental services that were set to host the VDGP in 2014 are able to do so.
It is a very important motion that I move today. Oral health is often overlooked when we talk about health care, but it is vitally important to one's overall health and wellbeing. Poor health of one's teeth and gums can cause or exacerbate a wide range of other diseases and health conditions. There are also the psychological effects that occur. People who have poor dental health can feel very embarrassed if they are missing teeth or have other issues around oral health, and they can withdraw from society. That is why it is very important that, in addition to a private dental healthcare system, we have a strong public dental healthcare system. Importantly, that system must deliver to those most vulnerable citizens, those citizens most at risk, who do not have the means to ensure that they get good oral healthcare treatment. That is why the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program is a very important program that ensures that there is encouragement for new dentists, graduating dentists, to go into the public dental system. It is also great for dentists. It ensures that graduate dentists gain extra professional experience and support through a structured program and have important access to and experience in the public dental sector.
That is why I am very concerned that this government have axed this program—a cut of close to $40 million to the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program. It is a real problem. I do not understand this sort of tradition of the Liberal Party of cutting the public dental system. The Howard government cut close to a billion dollars from the public dental service—actually it was quite a lot more than that in real terms today. It took Labor to commit $4.6 billion back into our public dental system, including money for children to get their checks.
This $40 million of funding was designated to increase the number of places to 100 for graduate dentists who want to get some experience voluntarily. The program also placed dentists in public dental facilities across the nation, thereby ensuring that health workforce shortages that often occur in the public system were provided for. The impact of these cuts are going too deep. Young, graduate dentists who want to get this experience will not be able to access this scheme. I think it is time that the government reversed this decision. This $40 million cut is ill thought out.
We have seen the mess that the Liberal Party have made when it comes to the dental system.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
If you have a question, you might want to ask one instead of interjecting, member for Herbert. It is no wonder you are embarrassed about this cut.
The government need to explain a number of questions. Once again, there are issues with the transparency of this cut. The government website still says that there are 100 positions. It has not been updated to reflect this cut. This is very concerning for people applying for these positions. Also, the government need to explain which of the 36 dental services that were set to host this program in 2014 will have their funding cut. The government have not been transparent about who will receive cuts.
They need to explain to the Australian community what the coalition's plan is for public dental health care. Under Labor, we saw a huge investment that improved waiting times and access to services right across Australia. Of course, there is more work to be done and more work to ensure that those on waiting lists can get access to public dental services. One of the big issues in this regard is ensuring that the workforce is in place. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, we have seen the public dental system earmarked by the coalition for cuts.
I think it also very concerning that the coalition are failing to support graduate dentists. This program was not only about ensuring there is the workforce in the public dental system but also about providing extra support for graduates to receiving training. Unfortunately, the coalition have shown that they refuse to support graduate dentists—and this is from a government that said there would be no cuts to health. Of course this is just the start of many more cuts. I hope the coalition will release their proposed cuts, because the Australian people have had enough of their secrecy. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion.
I rise today to speak in support of (1) and (b) of the motion on dental services. It is indeed of great importance to have a well-resourced dental system, which will improve the oral health of not just our most vulnerable citizens but all Australians. As part of that system, we need well-trained and well-supported dental graduates, who will play a crucial role in improving the oral health of our nation. However, with respect to (2) and (3) of the motion, I note that in 2012 the then Labor government withdrew government support and funding for some of our most vulnerable citizens—those with chronic dental problems.
The previous Labor government dismantled the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme after Prime Minister Abbott introduced the scheme during his time as health minister of the Howard government. The coalition was concerned to see that the many patients receiving treatment under the CDDS were left in the lurch. Labor at the time promised to effectively replace the CDDS with their Child Dental Benefits Schedule and a program for adults that was not intended to start until July 2014—some 19 months and one election later.
What the then Labor government simply did not seem to understand was that chronic dental problems are just that: continuing and ongoing problems. Chronic dental problems do not disappear simply because the funding disappears. Australians suffering from a chronic dental disease cannot simply wake up one morning and say: 'Well, the government has cut a program that greatly improved my quality of life. My problems will suddenly go away too, and I will be better.' No, these poor victims of chronic dental disease were made victims of Labor's chaos and mismanagement. They were left out in the cold for almost two whole years.
The news was little better for sick children using the scheme. They would have to wait 13 months until January 2014 and would have their benefit cut from $4,250 to $1,000 over two years. I understand that more than 60,000 services have been provided to children through the CDDS. These were children—children who were not able to have their treatment completed. The then Labor government, with their Greens partners in support, were asked to explain why these children were left to suffer for 13 months with unfinished treatment and no certainty of the schedule of services that were to be provided under Labor's new scheme well over a year later.
With many unable to afford the full cost of private treatment, this had serious health, economic and social ramifications for those suffering from chronic dental disease. This was a shameful decision that coalition members opposed and tried to stop in the parliament. Eighty per cent of patients under the chronic disease dental scheme were concession card holders, and they were being shoved out into the cold by Labor's decision. The Labor government had promised it would replace the scheme with a more limited program, but for adults that was not scheduled to start until July 2014, a 19-month wait. If you have ever had a toothache, Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that 19 hours is like an eternity, let alone 19 months. And, if you already have cancer, a heart condition, diabetes or another major health issue, a failure to treat your teeth can cause further health implications.
Labor simply did not have their priorities straight in the health portfolio. The failed former health minister, the member for Sydney, has no credibility. Under her tenure, Labor cut $1.6 billion from state hospitals in the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Labor holds up the great $650 million GP Super Clinics Program as a huge success, yet, seven years after they were promised and announced, many are not even open. Many remain just vacant blocks of land.
Labor spent a lot of money in health, but it was wasted on a new supersized bureaucracy and program cuts like the failed superclinic program. Labor failed to deliver any extra benefits for patients. Only the coalition government is working towards a stronger, more efficient, health portfolio where the focus is put back on the patients rather than the bureaucrats.
I commend the member for Kingston for drawing the House's attention to the importance of dental health. But I must question why she supported the last Labor government in dismantling the chronic disease dental scheme, leaving our most vulnerable citizens stranded without support. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor.
I must say that the member for Ryan usually researches her speeches well, but unfortunately on this occasion she is quite confused about the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. It was not a scheme that dealt with chronic dental disease, as she constantly stated throughout her contribution; rather, it was open to people who suffered from a chronic disease to access that program. Yes, it did help some people, but, then again, I felt that a scheme that would enable somebody with an ingrown toenail to access the chronic disease dental scheme shows that it was a very poorly targeted program.
That was the problem with that scheme: it was poorly targeted. It had no means test whatsoever. People who were millionaires were accessing that scheme. Dentists who I have spoken to about it were really frustrated about the types of people who were coming along and accessing the scheme. All they needed was a doctor who would sign off on it and they would be able to go along and get over $4,000 worth of dental treatment. It was poorly, poorly targeted! It was a scheme that helped some people but did not help others.
The other point I wanted to make was that the member for Ryan was talking about Grow Up Smiling—how that would not be accessible and that families could not access it until 1 January this year. It is in place and it is working. Thousands of children throughout Australia are actually accessing this scheme. Let us look at what you are axing here. A program—
A government member interjecting—
I would have thought that National Party members in particular from your side of this House would be up here speaking about this axing of the voluntary dental graduate program because those areas that are likely to benefit most from it are those areas that are further out from the cities, where they have trouble attracting people to work as dentists. This gives those dental graduates the opportunity to improve their skills enormously and it provides services to those areas that really lack dental health services.
That was only part of what Labor did when they were in power. We moved from the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which was very poorly targeted—and was one that I am sure the minister will not reintroduce—to a much better and fairer system, where those people who actually needed dental treatment could access it. A partnership agreement was reached—an interim partnership agreement came into being in the middle of last year, and the full-blown partnership comes in later this year.
This allowed those people who could not afford to attend a dentist to actually visit a dentist to get the treatment that they needed—those people who had need of a dental scheme, rather than people who were millionaires and who really should have private health insurance to access dental health care. The partnership agreement will provide $345.9 million over three years to address public dental help waiting lists, something that I am sure those on the other side would want to see happen. I know that when we looked at this issue in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, all members were committed to improving dental health for everybody.
It is $1.3 billion over four years—that was the interim amount that I just gave you—$2.7 billion over six years for Grow Up Smiling, and $225 million over four years for the flexible grants program that will put in place infrastructure in outer metropolitan areas. Labor was committed to dental health reform for all students while this government— (Time expired)
Like the member for Ryan, I would like to speak to the motion, and to parts 1(a) and 1(b). I do believe that we have to look after our dental health in this country. I was in a meeting in the last sitting week, and Peter Dutton, the Minister for Health, was there. We were going over all the problems in the health portfolio—all the issues around funding and where we were going to find all this money. There are problems with overpayments, the GP Superclinics and all these other things—the money taken out of the state hospital systems and things like that. I asked him, 'Have we got any good stories about health?' He stopped for a minute and said, 'We always have good stories about the health industry. We have one of the truly great health systems in the world in this country.' That is the message that I would like to get across here. Dental health just forms part of it.
What we have to do is make sure that we have a system which operates inside its budget. What we have to do is understand that currently the health spend in this country is $140 billion per year of which the federal government pays about $62 billion. We must look for efficiencies at every turn. When you are, as Joe Hockey has always said, looking down at accumulated deficits of $123 billion and when you are looking at gross debt if left unchecked at $667 billion, we are not doing anyone any favours by cutting programs and we are not doing anyone any favours by not addressing the issue of debt. Part of that will always be contentious matters where people say it is their pet project.
The member for Shortland said that you could get referred to a dentist because you had an ingrown toenail on the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I cannot speak for too many members, I can only speak for the phone calls that came through to me but I had parents, I had elderly, I had people coming to me—
Ms Hall interjecting—
This is the thing: why was it cut? Was it cut because it was not a good program? It was cut because Labor wanted to get to a budget surplus. That was the only reason for cutting it. You can sit there, holier than thou, and ask: are you going to bring it back? You guys cut it. We had to find the room to run the system. I would like to quote TheAustralian from 10 March 2014, where Townsville dentist Daryl Holmes who runs 23 practices in Queensland, New South Wales and Adelaide—1300SMILES—said:
… the abrupt closure of the CDDS spurred an outbreak of 'dental rage', with 14,000 patients demanding treatment ahead of the cut off.
He said:
Our girls were getting harassed at the front desk. It was a massive problem.
The hypocrisy of this motion and asking whether we are going to bring this back is just writ so large. I did not think I would see anything worse than the MPI last Thursday. The members from Western Australia were jumping up and down about having a plan for Western Australia. The member for Pearce got up and sliced and diced about the rhetoric around what they were trying to do there and what this motion actually stands for.
We have a health budget of $62 billion per year. It is incredibly right that we have to go through and look to make sure that every dollar is accounted for and that every dollar is spent wisely. Through the GP Super Clinics Program, we got one superclinic promised in 2007. I could go on for a day and a half about this. It is still not open. It is built; it has a big sign out the front saying Townsville GP superclinic; it has got the darkened glass; it has got everything there but it is still not open. It was promised in 2007. It was also promised that it would open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and take pressure off the emergency department. This will be open from seven in the morning until 11 in the evening, so it fails on the first thing. The GP superclinic model was supposed to be on a bulk-bill basis and everyone would be bulk-billed. These people will only bulk-bill concession holders, gold card holders, minors and pension holders, so it fails on every count. As soon as that was done, there was $6 million back in the kitty because the Townsville City Council would not let it open the hours it had planned to anyway. A responsible government would have done this correctly. This sort of motion for a $40-million program, which may be a fantastic program, says that you guys just do not get it. Now $123 billion worth of debt has to be addressed.
I would like to thank the member for Kingston for moving this motion on a subject that is very close to my heart. I know it is a subject that is close to her heart as well. Both of us understand that dental health and hygiene is in a way the great socioeconomic indicator in this nation. I am very proud of the work that Labor did while in government on improving dental health right across the nation, right across all socioeconomic levels. It is interesting that the member for Herbert focused on a range of issues and talked about cuts in the past. I remind the member for Herbert that what we are talking about today is the cut that is currently planned. Your policy is to cut $40 million from the voluntary dental graduate program.
I also remind the member for Herbert, with the greatest respect, of his leader's comments just prior to the election, where he said that there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS and, most importantly, no cuts to health. The fact that you now have plans to cut $40 million from this vitally important program flies in the face of that.
I know from speaking to my constituents that they are very, very concerned about what the budget could bring for them. Despite these promises of no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS and no cuts to health, you have already abolished the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, which is based in my electorate. There is $1.5 million in funding required for that organisation. That organisation has been around for nearly 50 years, providing world-class, invaluable advice on alcohol and other issues. It is a respected organisation, with a library that is one of a kind. It is a library that is coveted throughout the world for its expertise and its holdings. At the moment, the future of that library looks like it could be the shredder and the Mugga Lane tip. That is my great concern.
Despite the fact that your leader said prior to the election that there would be no cuts to health, already ADCA has been abolished—with 14 jobs lost, with this world-class library potentially gone—and now we have this plan for a $40 million cut to the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program. This program for dental graduates is a structured, one-year program that is designed to integrate practice and professional development opportunities, enhance workforce and service delivery capacity and support young dentists as they enter the profession. The program is specifically designed for graduates working in the public sector. It supports the best dental graduates in the country to work in the public sector, where their skills are most needed.
We have a scheme here in the ACT that is run by the Salvos—which a dear friend of mine, Liz Dawson, is actively involved in—that supports people from very disadvantaged backgrounds and who have no teeth. Through the trauma of time and their socioeconomic background, they have no teeth and, as a result, they have poor diets—as you cannot eat a carrot without any teeth! Also as a result of not having teeth, they cannot go out and get jobs because their self-esteem is at rock bottom. This scheme—and I have funded a number of these programs—is to provide these people with dentures and opportunities not just to eat a healthy diet and get fit and healthy again but also to get back into the workforce by boosting their self-esteem.
Good dental care is incredibly important. It enables good nutrition, as I have mentioned, and it prevents serious infection. It is important not only for our physical health but also for our mental health. A good set of teeth can provide the self-esteem required to find work, to access training, to actively engage in the community, to feel proud of yourself and to feel as though you can contribute to the community. Poor dental health can be a real barrier to social inclusion—and that is something that I have witnessed firsthand in my electorate.
We have a proud record of investing in dental health, to ensure all Australians have access to decent, quality dental care. We are incredibly proud of these investments. They show our commitment to ensuring that every Australian has access to dental care. I urge those opposite to show their commitment to a well-resourced dental system by reversing the decision to axe the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program. Let's support our best dental graduates to help Australia's most vulnerable people access the dental care that they deserve. (Time expired)
I rise with great pleasure to speak on this motion. I have been sitting here in the chamber listening to the contributions of the members for Kingston, Shortland and Canberra with the utmost interest, and their contributions have convinced me more than ever that they simply do not get it. Let us go back a little bit in history on our dental disease scheme and what we on this side have done in government here in Canberra over the years to help people with dental diseases. We do need to assist the most needy in our community to offset some of the high costs of accessing dental care. But we have to do that on a sustainable basis.
I would like to correct some of the revisionism, especially from the member for Shortland. If you go back to 1996, this federal government was $96 billion in debt. So, every year, the government the Howard-Costello government had to run a surplus to pay that debt down. They did that year after year, after year, after year. That meant putting money aside that otherwise could have been used for dental schemes to improve the dental health of Australians. Instead it had to go into retiring that debt and paying off that interest. By 2005, they had finally paid it off; $96 billion of debt had had been retired. Plus, what often gets overlooked is another $54 billion worth of interest payments made along the way. So, once we got that debt out of the way, once we got those interest payments cleared, we were able to still run surpluses. That allowed the previous coalition government to then invest more money in dental health, and that is exactly what the previous coalition government did. When the former health minister, the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2007 introduced a chronic dental disease scheme.
While this scheme was running it gave one million Australians access to dental care that they had never had before and that they would never have been able to afford. In fact of those one million people, 80 per cent—800,000 Australians—were able to get treatment under that scheme to address their dental needs. That is the social benefit of good government. That is the social benefit when you do not waste money; that is the social benefit of growing the economy.
Then what happened during the reign of the previous Labor government? We saw waste; we saw mismanagement; we saw increases in red tape and green tape. During the last parliament, in 2012, they cut the chronic dental disease scheme. They cut it overnight. In September, they even backdated the cutting so no new participants could access that scheme. And they had a cut-off for treatment of 30 November. This left thousands and thousands of people half-way through their treatment. And Labor said: 'Don't worry. We're bringing in a new scheme on 1 July 2014.' So they told citizens of this country with chronic dental disease—who needed treatment who were getting it under a previous coalition government scheme—to go away, take an Aspro, put up with pain and come back in 18 months. That is what this previous government did. And they come in here today with this motion. The word 'hypocrisy' does not come close to covering what we are seeing today.
They are arguing about a voluntary dental graduate program. Let's get a few facts before we hear this hysterical whingeing and whining about cuts. This scheme in 2013 provided 50 placements with the aim of assisting young dentists who are doing their training—to address the geographical distribution of our dental workforce; making sure those areas of public service in our remote regions are actually getting new dentists in. So we had 50 new placements in 2013. That was due to increase to 75 placements and 100 placements. We are simply making sure this scheme is working correctly before it is extended any further.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) there are three significant netball events approaching over the next four years, the:
(i) Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014;
(ii) Netball World Cup in Sydney in August 2015; and
(iii) Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in 2018; and
(b) netball:
(i) continues to be one of the most popular sports in Australia with the highest participation rate of any team sport amongst girls; and
(ii) has been identified as not only having notable fitness benefits but also significantly decreasing the likelihood of depression; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia's elite netball players have opportunities to interact with parliamentarians as they prepare for the upcoming Commonwealth Games and the Netball World Cup;
(b) the Australian media plays an important role in highlighting the role that netball has in our cultural identity, which in turn promotes the sport and increases participation rates; and
(c) Netball Australia should be congratulated for its impact in boosting the profile of women in sport, providing its members with valuable leadership skills and supporting world-class athletes.
I am delighted to move this motion and take the opportunity to recognise the valuable role that the sport of netball plays in local communities across Australia and, indeed, around the world. Netball is played by more than 20 million people in more than 70 countries and is by far the most popular women's sport in Australia, with an estimated 1.2 million players nationwide.
This motion recognises that our national netball team, the Diamonds, will compete at the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in July this year. We wish them all the very best. I note that Australia has won gold in two of the four Commonwealth Games which have included netball. At the last Commonwealth Games, in India, the Diamonds took out silver, with New Zealand taking gold. Hopefully, we will reverse that order, and we look forward to a great competition in Glasgow.
Next year Australia will host the Netball World Cup, in Sydney. The world cup occurs every four years, with the top 16 netball nations competing. Australia has a terrific record, having won 10 of the 13 world cup competitions. I note that the Prime Minister's wife, Margie Abbott, is the Netball World Cup ambassador. I congratulate her and thank her for taking on that role.
The international netball event coming up in Australia, which as a Gold Coast member I am very proud of, is the 2018 Commonwealth Games, which will be held primarily on the Gold Coast. Preparations are well underway on the coast to ensure a fantastic games, and we look forward to welcoming athletes, including netballers, from around the world when the Games begin in April 2018.
With these major events, there will be many opportunities over the coming years for all members of this House to interact with our elite netball players and to support and recognise the role that netball plays in our cultural identity. I encourage members to also promote netball in their electorates and encourage participation. I encourage members and senators to join the Parliamentary Friends of Netball, which has recently been established and which I am delighted to chair.
I also encourage greater recognition by the media and sports commentators of the national netball competition. While netball games are now telecast live, it is important that the sporting media give netball decent coverage so that young girls can hear about their teams and their sporting role models in much the same way that young boys hear about theirs
There are a lot of well-documented pressures and stresses on our young people, and on girls in particular. Participation in sport provides a healthy outlet that can boost self-confidence and help significantly reduce the likelihood of developing depression. Netball provides a sort of antidote to the bombardment of highly sexualized images and photoshopped ideals of beauty that our young girls are constantly subject to and which contribute to the growing incidence of body-image issues. Studies show that looking at a fashion magazine for three minutes resulted in lower self-esteem for around 80 per cent of women and girls. Conversely, the Women's Sports Foundation found that girls who participate in sports at school have better grades, higher levels of self-confidence and lower levels of depression. There is no doubt that the more we can encourage our young girls into sport the better they will be for their participation.
Netball is a very natural pathway for many girls because competitions take place in thousands of local communities. In fact there are 5,273 netball clubs around the country—each hosting a number of teams of different ages. Local clubs are run by dedicated volunteers who give their time each and every week. I thank the many parents, family members and other people who coach, umpire, run the canteen, keep score and cheer from the sidelines every week. They are the backbone of our netball clubs.
I would like also to take this opportunity, in talking about the fantastic network of netball clubs throughout Australia, to recognise the work of Netball Australia. Netball Australia has a long and proud history and does a fantastic job of bringing together the various state organisations to further promote the sport and advocate on behalf of players. I congratulate the board of directors and the hardworking staff of Netball Australia for building such a well-respected and admired brand in Australian sport.
The exciting competitions that are coming up over the next four years will provide all lovers of the sport with the chance to enjoy the camaraderie and sportsmanship that are a hallmark of netball. I am sure there are teenage girls all around Australia, playing in representative teams for their communities and their state, who dream of one day playing for the Diamonds and representing Australia at the highest level. Just as our boys dream of playing cricket for Australia or becoming a member of the Wallabies, it is wonderfully enriching that our girls have such a successful national representative team to strive towards as the pinnacle of their sporting goals. I commend this motion to the House and once again take this opportunity to wish the Diamonds every success when they compete in Glasgow.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I rise today with pleasure to pay tribute to a sport that has delivered enormous social good for over a century in communities across our nation. Netball taught me, and thousands like me, the importance of team, the thrill of winning and the lows of defeat from a contest-by-contest as well as game and season perspective. It taught us about fitness and about persistence; it taught us to work hard and to work together. It taught us about volunteering and about community. It provided local role models—women who played hard on the court and ran a very successful and inclusive association, of which I am honoured to say I am a life member. Women like Jenny Toohey, Irene Cooney, Wilma Ryan, Dulcie Harvey and Alison Purdon were involved from their girlhood through to their 60s, and Kerin Flaherty, today in her 70s, is still umpiring multiple times a week.
In the years I grew from junior to senior, netball grew from a sleeping giant to having the highest participation rates of any sport in the country for girls, and with it came more opportunities for those involved. When I was a kid I lived for stories of Melbourne University Blue and North Melbourne. These were serious clubs where state reps learned their craft and donned the Victorian navy blue in the national championships to play arch rivals New South Wales and South Australia. Today we have a trans-Tasman competition with international players from around the world televised weekly, adding to the media coverage of international competitions such as the World Cup, the Commonwealth Games and annual Tests.
I want to pay tribute today to a lady who was critical and pivotal in building the profile of this great sport: the great Joyce Brown. Joyce Brown OAM was a Victorian player, captain and coach. She was an Australian player, captain and coach. She was a double-A badged umpire and developed the national coaching accreditation programs still used today. She is a great Victorian and great Australian. It was women like those in my community and like Joyce Brown who took their love for the game and built what we have today.
What is so special about netball? Let me explain. It is a true team sport. It is a game of specialised positions that are limited to populate only certain parts of the court. It therefore takes more than one player to move the ball from one end of the court to the other. Teams have alternating possession from the centre, so one team cannot dominate the game the same way they can in soccer or hockey or football or basketball. This creates one-on-one contests all over the court for every possession, which means it is about strategy. It is about creating and closing down space and doing it in a cohesive way, using intricate moves and counter-moves all over the court. The uninitiated soon learn that, although the rules say it is a no-contact sport, it is all about contact in the contest, move and counter-move. It is also like dancing—it has a rhythm that is hypnotic and players rely heavily on kinetic awareness and peripheral vision.
For my netball friends and I, who also played lots of other sports together, netball is the only thing—the sport that provides the tightest physical contact with the perfectly threaded pass, the exquisitely timed lead, the crafted moves that open up just the right space and the 'aha' moment, when limbs and mind combine and a great intercept is taken and the player and ball move smoothly through the air. Playing the game is theatre and concert. It is elegant and graceful. It is demanding and exhilarating. It is the most aerial of sports, combining the perfect one-handed passes, the high hard to a leading player and the sweet arch of the lob, these juxtaposed by the double-handed give-and-gos and tight bounce passes delivered around corners at lightning speed.
In a Commonwealth Games year, I wish another great Victorian, Lisa Alexander, and her charges in the national team all the best in their selection and preparation across the next six months and a great tournament in Glasgow. I, like all netball fans, look forward, as ever, to watching the Diamonds play. I also congratulate all involved in the ANZ Championships, particularly, of course, the Vixens. I commend the motion to the House.
It is wonderful to see you in the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs. I do not think I have seen you in the chair before, so it is delightful to be here this afternoon. It is an absolute delight to speak on this motion, regarding netball, before us today. I commend the member for McPherson on her wonderful motion. I was just talking to her and she was telling me that she was a very good netball player herself and would have had a very promising career at the state level except for a vertebra injury. So it goes to show you that injury can cripple us all. Anyway, I commend the member for McPherson and I will look forward to hearing more about her promising netball career.
The member for Herbert was also telling me that he is fairly mean on the netball court himself. It was also very enlightening to hear from him about his prowess on the netball court.
My daughter played for Townsville.
Right, okay. I think most of us have enjoyed, in some form or another, a friendly game of netball. As a matter of fact, I know that in a lot of country areas mixed netball is very popular and it is a great way for country communities to socialise and to have a bit of fun after work.
But there is a serious side to netball as well. There are over 20 million people worldwide who play netball, so that is a lot of people out there participating, keeping fit and enjoying a great sport. In Australia we have 1.2 million participants, and the majority of those are girls or young women who are out there having a great time. One of my fondest boyhood memories as a young kid growing up in the country was always turning up to Saturday morning sport. You would be there. All the boys would be looking forward to running out onto the football ground, and all the girls would be looking forward to running out on the netball court. Then there would be great socialisation afterwards, and that still continues today in urban, regional and rural centres. It is absolutely an essential part of those communities that we have netball and the various forms of football which take place across the country.
I am also very pleased to see that the Australian government, the Abbott government, has recognised the importance of netball through a contribution of $3 million to Netball Australia. That has been given through the Australian Sports Commission, and it is important that we give funding to the grassroots support which provides the physical basis for young women, in particular, to be out there exercising on a regular basis, because, as we know, when we are out there living healthy lives our minds remain healthy, and that helps our communities across the nation.
So I commend the member for McPherson for this motion. I think that in this place it is always good for us to stop and recognise the important things that take place in our community. We can get tied up in the hefty things, the things that we consider important, but for many young people that daily game of netball—the nerves beforehand, wondering whether they are going to come away with victory, how they have played and whether they have let their team mates down or not—becomes a fundamental part of their lives growing up and a fundamental part of their activities on a weekend. I know that there are netball games played right across my electorate of Wannon, and they are played fiercely and competitively but ultimately in a great spirit, because everyone is able to shake hands at the end of the match.
So I think it is important for all of us here to come together to recognise the importance of netball and what it contributes to our way of life. I think those opposite would probably remember watching that game in the eighties when Australia played New Zealand for the Trans Tasman Trophy and Bob Hawke was in the audience. We won by a goal. It was 1-1, and we won the thriller. I think the whole nation celebrated when that event occurred. So it is great to see netball still flourishing and it is great to see us here as a parliament recognising that.
I too, like all the speakers on this motion, am in support of this motion. This is a good, sensible motion which recognises a fantastic sport in the Australian community that is played at all levels, from community level to professional level right across to world championship level, the elite level.
It is a good motion and it does recognise there are three significant netball events coming up in the next four years: the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014, which I am sure all Australians will be tuning into on their televisions if they are not visiting and supporting our netball players; the Netball World Cup in Sydney in August next year, which again will be a huge event and something well supported right across all sport lovers; and, near my hometown in Queensland, the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in 2018. There is lots of work being done right now to prepare the facilities, infrastructure and everything the Gold Coast and South-East Queensland will be a party to. We will all be very keen on watching all the sports, but we will make a particular note to focus in on the netball as well. As the shadow minister for sport, I can assure you that I will be focusing on all sports and wishing well to all of our Australian teams and participants.
It is interesting that netball is one of the most popular sports in Australia, played on courts all over the country. Almost every suburb would have a team, court or some sort of infrastructure. Particularly for girls and women it is a very big sport. It has an enormous range of health benefits, which I know the member has talked about in her motion. I think it is also good to recognise that at the elite level we really do have champions amongst champions.
Australia's own national team, the Diamonds, is a fantastic team of great players and does a lot to highlight Australia's prowess, not just in sport generally but particularly in netball. According to my research, we have won titles in 10 of the past 13 world championships. That is an enormous achievement. If you looked across any other code in any other sport, you would be pretty proud to say you have that record. We will also be defending champions at the next world titles in 2015. Unfortunately, New Zealand edged us out of the gold medal at the last Commonwealth Games, but we obviously are always keen to redress that minor hiccup. It is always good to be competing against our neighbours across the ditch and seeing what we can do to beat them in a whole range of things.
I think we will hear it from all the contributors on this. It says a lot about the sport that, globally, over 20 million people play. It is played in 80 different countries, and that there are over a million players in Australia is a great testimony to the game. I know the member for Chifley, who is sitting next to me, is a player of the round ball game—netball from time to time, but he particularly favours basketball. I know he will mention that when he makes his contribution, but I know he is a supporter and very familiar with the game.
I myself have not played very often, but it is a lot more challenging than it may look on the surface. It is a lot more technical and involves a high degree of skill and prowess. I know it is a really big thing in my own community. You see it being played all over. It is as big as or bigger in some areas than soccer, football or any other code. I wanted to acknowledge that.
An honourable member: Cycling.
And much bigger than cycling—in certain parts, anyway—although I might have some debates about which is most fun.
One of the things that is also highlighted is that the success of netball comes not only from players and the game itself but also from the administration and the way that Netball Australia works. If you are going to have a high-participating sport with a lot of people playing, you need a lot of volunteers and community support. You need support at the local government level for infrastructure. You need it at a state level in terms of how the game is structured and played. You need it at the Commonwealth level. I am pretty proud to say that through successive governments netball has enjoyed that support at every level and will continue to do so whether Labor is in office or in opposition, as I am sure would be the case on the other side. It has many benefits, and we have acknowledged those well.
If I could indulge on this motion for a few seconds: I am sure everyone would join with me in saying a big congratulations to our winter Paralympic team. The Paralympic Games in Sochi concluded last night, and Australia won two bronze medals. We are exceptionally proud of that as well.
I welcome this opportunity to rise and talk about my enthusiastic support for sport in general but for netball in particular. In my youth I participated enthusiastically in a whole range of sports—ball sports as well, like the member for Chifley—most particularly team sports. You will note that avid enthusiasm is not the same thing as athletic virtuosity, but I tried and I had a lot of fun. That includes involvement in netball, which is of course the leading participation sport for females in Australia and which delivers a fitness dividend of great value to our society. I had involvement when my two girls played netball at school and when I was commandant of the Army Recruit Training Centre, where I sponsored the Kapooka netball 7s, and today I stand before you very proudly as the patron of the Northern Tasmanian Netball Association. Some 1,300 young women participate in the sport from age 11 right up to masters level. They are our emerging Diamonds, some rougher than others but emerging nevertheless into the future to carry the flag for Australia in netball in future competitions.
Team sports have always played a vital and important role in Australia. In today's technological world, they encourage people to engage with each other, to get active and physically involved in life, and to do so directly with other participants. I am glad that, fortunately, real team sport has not been hijacked to the virtual ether. The rewards for all involved in team sports like netball are diverse and long-lasting: physical wellbeing, social interaction and, particularly for the young, the development and enrichment of their character—in a sense, a wider preparation for life. The dedication and discipline shown by players on the field, pitch or court inevitably reap rewards in others facets of players' lives, far beyond their sporting venues.
There remains something very special, unique and rewarding about channelling one's personal efforts toward a goal apart from oneself: to a team unified and made whole by purpose, goal, direction and above all collective effort, that symmetry and poetry we have heard some speakers talking about before. Indeed, many of life's harder lessons, particularly perseverance, are also well learned through the friendly combat of sport. I will paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, who said this about some of the spirit and gritty requirements of people involved in the elite level of sport. I think his quote is equally applicable to character struggle in life, both sporting and beyond. He said:
It is not the critic who counts; nor those who point out how the strong have stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to those actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds … who at the best knows … the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if they fail, at least fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Simply put, team sports matter, and perhaps nowhere more than in Australia. They matter most because winning a match, championship, tournament or other such goal is inevitably tough. It cannot be done without much work, discipline, effort and struggle. While talent is important, beyond a base level it is not sufficient of itself. And this alone makes team sports great practice for winning at, and in, life, which is inevitably much harder still.
Amongst Australia's eminent sporting bodies is Netball Australia, which has a lustrous past and a very bright and exciting future. I congratulate Netball Australia for boosting the profile of women in sport, affording its members valuable opportunities to develop leadership and team skills and supporting our world-class netballers. I look forward to cheering our netball teams, particularly as the Aussie Diamonds take on the New Zealand Silver Ferns at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. I wish the ladies all the best in reclaiming their Commonwealth Games title and in defending their world title in Sydney next year. I also look forward to watching our emerging young Diamonds at netball every Saturday in Launceston.
It is great to be here with you in this great chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to congratulate the member for McPherson on two counts. First, this is a terrific resolution and is most definitely worthy of the House's consideration. Second, I want to commend her on her persuasion powers: to be able to get me as a fan of basketball to speak about netball is something else. I now extend to you due deference from this point onwards in your ability to be able to do that.
I speak on this resolution quite willingly, particularly from a local perspective, because I have seen two fantastic associations in our area, the Blacktown netball association and the Mount Druitt Netball Association, do wonderful things over an extended period of time and I want to devote my contribution to this resolution to reflect on the work that they have done in their area.
It has already been covered in the course of this discussion about our strength in netball. While our female basketballers do tremendously well on the international stage, it is netball where we are in rarefied air, where we have held our heads up so high for so long. It comes down to strong local competitions providing a talent pool that can be drawn upon for local, state and then national and international competition.
In our area the birth of netball incidentally started out being known as basket ball—two separate words—in Blacktown. It goes all the way back 44 years when about 500 leaflets were letterboxed to local homes and about 50 people turned up to a tiny scout hall that could only seat a few, to kick of the Blacktown netball association. From that day forward, a very hardworking executive committee made up of women from six foundation school clubs set about teaching young women everything they needed to know about throwing, catching, keeping their feet still, aiming, shooting and even umpiring—all from six rule books that were present that they were able to get their hands on.
The year of 1967, unfortunately, proved to be very wet and that caused no end of frustration for the organisers and their students, but the association was alive and well and never took a backwards step. So successful was the recruitment drive that hundreds of local girls would flock each weekend to the handful of courts that existed. This caused no end of heartache for our local government association of Blacktown council, because there simply weren't enough courts to play on.
Enter Joan Sookee, the mother of four daughters. Driven by hundreds of new members keen to take up the sport, she successfully stood for Blacktown council and, under her watch, council approved permanent playing fields or courts for the sport, ironically still known as basket ball, until an official name change in 1970 to netball. Rightly, Alderman Sookee was then honoured each year with one of the major awards in her name being handed out to local achievers.
The local army of mums and players became organised at our opening day in March complete with a brass band that started in playing fields from 1968. As their skills improved, stars began to emerge, including Michelle Collyer, nee Eldred, who became the first Australian rep in 1977, followed by someone who was an attendee at my old school of Blacktown South, Keeley Devery, in the 1980s. So Western Sydney netball was placed well and truly on the map.
The other association that sprung up is Mount Druitt Association, whose president Margaret Weir joins the president of the Blacktown association, Sandra Marks, in being figureheads for the sport in our area, playing out at Blackett. Teams like the Dolphins, Electric Blue, Emerald, Good Shepherd, Hebersham, Hassall Grove, Glendenning Sparks, Tregear, All Stars, Fire Birds, Fusion and New Beginnings all turn out to do their best at Dot Lamerton Netball Complex at Blackett. Those two associations are doing great things.
The final moments of my speech, however, will be focused on this one thing: as I mentioned earlier, rain is a terrible enemy of weekend netball and, if you do not play, it gets forfeited. We need to see in our area an indoor complex that can house netball games, that can provide wet-weather ability to continue those games but can also provide a platform for other sports like futsal to play. I urge Blacktown council to find the wherewithal to fund the development of such a complex in ours, the largest council in the state. But, again, member for McPherson, thank you putting a spotlight on what is a terrific sport, doing great things for women and young girls in our area.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the importance of investing in local communities to assist them in meeting future challenges and seizing future opportunities;
(2) acknowledges that the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) Round 5 and 5b commitments, which were announced and budgeted for by the former government, were an opportunity for regional communities to address their challenges of growth whilst also providing economic activity and job creation;
(3) recognises that the withdrawal of these funding commitments will adversely affect every local council across Australia that was relying on the RDAF Round 5 and 5b funding; and
(4) calls on the government to immediately reinstate the funding as previously promised and budgeted for, thereby enabling communities to continue with certainty the projects they so desperately need.
Last week on 11 March, my office was contacted by several Tarneit residents concerned after reading the local paper. They were ringing to convey their dismay that the planned library would not receive the $1.05 million promised by the federal government. I was surprised to learn in the same article that the responsible minister had confirmed to a local journalist that the funds would not be delivered as budgeted. On the same day, my office received a letter addressed to me from the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the member for Wide Bay. It was in response to a letter I had written requesting confirmation of federal government funding for the new Tarneit library. It was dated 28 February, but it seems it took a full nine days for the post to get to Werribee from Canberra.
The letter was in response to a letter I had sent to both the member for Wide Bay and the member for Mayo on 31 October last year. I, like the residents of Tarneit, learned of the decision from the local paper because the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, took a full four months to respond to my letter. In those four months, another 500 houses have been built in the growth suburb of Tarneit. In those four months, the population of Tarneit has grown by another 790 people. In those four months, a school year has gone and a new one begun, with more and more students needing access to books. The local students at Tarneit college are doubly disadvantaged because their school has no library either. The need for the Abbott government to honour the commitment to fund Tarneit library becomes more urgent every day.
The infrastructure minister, however, has decided to cut government funding for the Tarneit library. He explained the funding cuts in these terms: 'The government has announced that it does not propose to fund projects announced by the former government. These projects were election promises and naturally do not bind the incoming government.' This is simply not true. The funding was approved and budgeted for before the election campaign had begun. I note the minister recommends 'another two funds the government has set up' and suggests that they may be a source of future funding for the Tarneit library project. In short, he is suggesting that the city of Wyndham reapply for the same money for the same project. Correct me if I am wrong, Deputy Speaker, but is this not coming from the same government that proudly assert they are here to cut red tape? How is reapplying for the same grant a second time cutting red tape?
Tarneit is one of the fastest-growing communities in Melbourne—a suburb of Wyndham, the third-fastest-growing local government area in the country. In Tarneit there are more than 9,990 households, 5,700 residents from non-English speaking backgrounds and 7,500 people currently attending an educational institution. Tarneit's population grew between 2007 and 2012 by 15,000 people, a staggering 295 per cent increase. Tarneit needs vital services and infrastructure yesterday. All the research says that kids who are read to have better literacy outcomes. This is incontestable and the reason that libraries are so important in a growing community. Last week I spoke to a council officer who told me that the neighbouring Point Cook library run a zero-to-two book session for 17 babies and that just last week 50 children were present with their parents for a session. That is one clear example of the demand and oversubscription in Lalor. As you can see, this library has already had huge support from the community and in turn the library supports the community.
The city of Wyndham has done its part. It is time the federal government honoured its part of this bargain. Providing services such as a public library is precisely what government is for. It could not be more clear: this community desperately needs this library. A community member only last Friday said to me: 'We need this library, Joanne. My children are spending 45 minutes on a bus just to get to the closest library and then 45 minutes home again.' If you are serious about cutting red tape, do not make the city of Wyndham reapply for funding that has already been granted and budgeted for. Do not make them write yet another submission. Do not make them collate yet more data. The growth pattern in Lalor is clear. The Tarneit library is clearly a priority for local council. The need is incontestable and the positive outcomes all but guaranteed. I would strongly urge the federal government to support this library, to fund the $1.05 million as promised before the election.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I share the member for Lalor's disappointment about her important school library which is not being funded. I might add that last Friday in The Area News, the Griffith newspaper, there was a report headed 'Costly Griffith theatre upgrade moved forward'. It said:
COUNCIL has been forced to outlay hundreds of thousands of dollars to refurbish dilapidated seats and unsafe carpet being held together with tape at the Griffith Regional Theatre
Council has been forced to find the refurbishment costs of $321,368, which would revitalise the theatre. That was part of the round 5 RDAF funding, which did not materialise. I could go through the 13 local government areas that I represent—Bland, Carrathool, Coolamon, Griffith, Gundagai, Junee, Leeton, Murrumbidgee, Narrandera, Temora, Tumbarumba, Tumut and Wagga Wagga local government areas—all of which were going to be receiving some $3,225,981 in funding under the Regional Development Australia Fund round 5. Then I could mention the half a million dollars going to Griffith Post School Options as part of round 5B, which also promised half a million dollars to an outreach service at Narrandera. These are all really worthwhile funds. I must admit that I agree with the member for Lalor: I am really disappointed that they are not going to be funded.
But at the start of the member for Lalor's speech she talked about the responsible minister, and that is the difference. I am not quite sure what context she meant, but certainly the minister is very responsible. The reason he is responsible is that you cannot fund things that you do not have the money for, and the whole premise of RDAF rounds 5 and 5B was based on the minerals resource rent tax, which only retrieved a fraction of the money that underpinned Labor's last budget. You cannot just find money that is not there, Member for Lalor.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
Member for Lalor, you have had your turn.
On 9 December 2013, the responsible minister wrote to all mayors throughout Australia advising of the government's decision. It is unfortunate, but the money is just not there. RDAF was designed by the former government as a $952 million seven-year program to run from 2011-12 through to 2017-18. Two and a quarter years on, from July 2011 to the election on 7 September last year, Labor had promised all but $35 million of that RDAF funding, so 97 per cent of the money had already been promised based on this false premise that the MRRT was going to produce these wonderful rivers of wealth, which we all know did not happen.
I share your disappointment about your school library and about the local government areas in your electorate. Mind you, you would have benefited from one of the RDAF rounds, because they transformed it from being regional—and I view 'regional' as meaning part of Dawson, Riverina or one of those other good bush or country electorates, not peri-urban electorates. Labor mysteriously and miraculously, as they had a wont to do, changed the rules. Last year the member for Hotham, Simon Crean, the former minister for regional development, tried to make the Gillard government fess up to all their sins and lost his job over it. Then the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese, took over and he announced this funding on 19 June, and I welcomed it—$3.2 million for Riverina. More than 500 local government areas throughout Australia were going to benefit from it. But, just weeks on from the member for Grayndler taking over as the minister, we had Catherine King, the member for Ballarat, taking over. It was just shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.
That goes to show the lack of respect that Labor had for regional areas and for the really important funding announcements that were so needed, like the library in Lalor, Post School Options in Griffith in my electorate, the Khancoban Swimming Pool, the Griffith Regional Theatre and the Roxy Community Theatre at Leeton—all worthwhile projects. A lot of my local government areas put all the money into one funding bucket and some others had different projects, such as Tumbarumba Shire, but they all really needed that money. But the money was never there, because the MRRT gained only a fraction of what Labor thought it might.
Labor knew they would never have to deliver on their promises. That is why they sent Catherine King, the member for Ballarat, around just days out from the election promising this, that and everything else, particularly in National Party electorates. It is really galling to some of those small volunteer groups and vulnerable people to think that they were going to get something that was based on a false premise, and that is the MRRT. It was typical Labor spin.
I rise today to speak in support of the member for Lalor. In particular, I wish to report to the House the disappointment that the people of Indi have expressed regarding the withdrawal of funding commitments under the Regional Development Australia fund rounds A and B. The allocation of funding under rounds A and B was an investment in rural and regional communities. It enabled growth, created jobs and provided certainty for desperately needed community projects. Many of these projects have an important safety focus, particularly road infrastructure. People in Indi are most disappointed that proposed RDA funding for road black spots will not go ahead.
I have spoken to a number of key stakeholders responsible for the rollout of RDA projects in my electorate. They have expressed bewilderment that the RDA funding system has been abolished. They tell me that the system was efficient, easy to use and that it funded projects that would otherwise not have been prioritised for funding. Two weeks ago, in this place, I spoke about the good work the Hume RDA committee does in Indi. Their leadership and research has had a significant impact on the planning and implementation of essential projects in my region.
Under rounds 5A and 5B, Indi was due to receive in excess of $7.3 million in RDA funding. I want to list the projects that missed out. They were: the Wodonga City heart redevelopment at $5.86 million, the Wodonga Tennis Centre court redevelopment at $343,000, Rutherglen Main Street at $284,000, Wangaratta Saleyards upgrade at $410,000, Mount Beauty Progressing Place at $247,000 and Mansfield Daisy Street construction and car park at $192,000. These projects represent significant community and volunteer input as well as the time and money of the councils of Indi.
In speaking to this motion I would also like to voice my support for the RDA decision-making process. It worked. It was efficient. It was trusted. It had legitimacy. It created effective networks. It delivered high-value, great outcomes and, most importantly of all, there was no red tape. One of the reasons this process worked so well was the extent of consultation that took place prior to its establishment. Community members were involved, as were NGO groups such as Australian Women in Agriculture, business groups, local government, community agencies and state government departments. We argued and we debated. We worked in great cooperation to design a system that would deliver for all our rural and regional communities.
We know that this government wants to leave a legacy as an infrastructure government. This is a noble aim and it has my total support. However, a critical first step is to build on what works and to avoid the temptation to dismantle well-established and respected processes just for the sake of change. My constituents tell me that the RDA scheme works, and works well. It gave councils confidence to plan and gave them processes to engage with all stakeholders. It had a belief in long-term sustainable development and, for our communities, there was an ability to proactively develop rural and regional areas for the future.
In closing, I echo the words of the members of Lalor. I call on the government to reinstate RDA funding right across the country. This funding is important for the future development of rural and regional areas, in particular—including Indi. I believe that the abolishment of this funding will cause us to miss infrastructure opportunities. It will cause the loss of economic activity and job-creation opportunities that our rural and regional areas desperately need. I ask that the government truly value the work and the knowledge of our councils and reinstate a program similar to what is currently working for our local government areas. Finally, I call on the government as a matter of urgency to reinstate funding, thereby enabling communities to continue to plan and develop our regional centres to ensure their viability for our future.
This motion notes the importance of investing in local communities to assist them in meeting future challenges and seizing future opportunities. That is very commendable indeed. But the motion then goes on to talk about funding commitments under the Regional Development Australia Fund. What it does not mention is the term 'unfunded Labor election promises', which is exactly what these so-called Regional Development Australia funding commitments, made during the election campaign, actually were.
With all due respect to the previous speaker, the member for Indi, the Regional Development Australia Fund was anything but well established and anything but respected in the community. In fact, both from my local RDA and from local councils the response has been that it was chaotic, that it was inconsistent, that every round was different and that councils and applicants simply did not know what the rules were when they went to apply. That was the experience of local organisations and local councils and indeed the feedback from my local RDA.
I note that the motion claims rounds 5 and 5B of the RDA Fund were announced and budgeted. Well, that is half right. Projects were announced; they were announced during the middle of an election campaign. Along with making their various other announcements, Labor also tried to claim that these were not election promises and that the projects were 'already funded' or 'already in the budget'. For example, in my electorate the Labor candidate issued a press release on 19 August 2013, two weeks after the election had been called—well and truly into caretaker mode—with this promise:
A re-elected Rudd Labor Government will provide federal funding towards the upgrade of Whitsunday Coast Airport …
Labor's press release then goes on to put a caveat on this $10 million promise, saying that the federal government's commitment was contingent upon the Whitsunday Regional Council providing the required additional funding. Well, the required additional funding, according to the original application, was a further $5 million. So not only was it an election promise; it was an election promise with a huge caveat—one that would have seen a $290 increase in rates bills across the Whitsundays.
But wait. Labor's press release then goes on to make this claim about their promise: that the commitment would have been delivered through the government's Regional Development Australia Fund and was already included in the budget. Well, I looked through the budget for this and many other announcements, and they were not in the budget at all. There was no line item in the budget that announced $10 million for the Whitsunday airport or any of the other programs or projects funded through the RDA. There was not even a mention in a media release that these programs were going to be funded. Just like all of these Labor promises, there were no line items, no mention in the budget. If those opposite were so convinced about funding these projects, they would have made the deal earlier and they would have had it in the budget—or at least in a press release that came out when the budget was delivered only three months earlier.
So what changed in those three months? We had another sitting Labor Prime Minister knifed in the back. We had bad polling by the government at the time—bad enough to knife the Prime Minister and run around the country making spur-of-the-moment election promises, trying to pass them off as already funded projects that were in the budget. That just does not cut it, and neither did their promise to fund a library in the northern beaches and Mackay. It was another project that was contingent on funding from local government. But this so-called second coming of the Rudd government also promised funding for this northern beaches library just four days before calling the election. Only two months earlier they brought down their budget, and that was not mentioned in it. It was not even mentioned in a press release emanating from the budget.
So it is quite clear that these were election commitments. In fact, I spoke to the then Deputy Prime Minister about them, and he told me that the advice from the head of the department was that these were being treated by the department as election promises by the Labor Party. You cannot get more impartial advice than that, and that was the advice from the department.
I will be encouraging all my local councils, and I would ask the mover of the motion and the member for Indi and all others to encourage their councils, to reapply for these projects through a proper program that we will establish, called Stronger Regions. It will be available in 2015, and it will not be some fairytale pot of money that is linked to a mining tax that is not actually raising anything. It will be a proper program—real funding. That is what responsible governments do; that is what grown-up governments do. What this motion comes down to is a scorned Labor Party upset because its election promises are not being delivered by us on this side. We would not require them to deliver our election promises if they were elected and they should not require us to do it either.
I would like to congratulate the member for Lalor on bringing this important motion to the House and I would like to congratulate the member for Indi for her contribution to the debate. They both show that they really understand what regional grants are about. This is unlike speakers on the other side, who just seem committed to going back to the old days of the Regional Solutions program or, should I say, the 'regional rorts project' that in my area saw the then government funding—
An opposition member: Tumbi Umbi Creek.
Tumbi Umbi Creek! Yes, which was actually flushed out by the rain.
This program was a project that had a high level of accountability. It was very transparent; for any project to be funded it had to pass the highest level of scrutiny. This is unlike the previous Regional Solutions program where it just depended on whether you were a mate of the government of the day to get funded.
I am very disappointed about a program funded in my area—and I might add that the funding for these projects was allocated in the budget, well and truly before the election period; any project that was announced was signed off before the government went into caretaker mode. So these were not promises; these were funded projects. The project in my area that I am so disappointed about is the Gulgul Barang project that was to be run in conjunction with the Darkinjung Aboriginal people and local community groups.
It was a fantastic project, because it was a whole-of-community effort. The Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council donated the land and sat down in conjunction with the San Remo Neighbourhood Centre, the Central Coast Medicare Local, Youth Connections, ET Australia and the local advisory group, Better Futures, Local Solutions, and came up with this project.
The northern part of Wyong shire has absolutely no facilities whatsoever. The Wyong Shire Council tends to ignore the fact that there are people up there who really need resources and services that they can use. This was a recognition of the fact that people in that area do not have any training facilities and do not have anywhere that they can meet or use as a hub. This new centre was to be an innovative learning hub for the whole of the area. It was going to deliver community based health care, training and skills development and also community and cultural engagement. There was going to be an arts precinct to encourage local artists, cultural presentations and also an iDialogue cafe to set up a digital connectivity community.
There was broad based consultation with community groups and a lot of work had already been done. The DA was about to be presented and considerable financial costs had been incurred by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council because there was a high level of commitment to this project, which was really needed in the area. Then we had the coalition government elected and they have walked away from it. They have walked away from the people in the northern part of the Central Coast and shown that they have no commitment to the people in the Shortland electorate.
On the other hand, they agreed to fund projects that were in Liberal-held electorates and which were announced prior to the election. They stand condemned for the fact that they are ignoring the needs of the northern part of Wyong Shire Council, the southern part of Shortland electorate, and the people will judge them accordingly. We need resources there. This was a community project that was developed with strong partnerships between a number of different groups. I strongly support the motion that is before the House today, moved by the member for Lalor.
As a member of parliament representing a large regional electorate in Victoria, I believe the administration of the Regional Development Australia Fund by the previous Labor government was utterly inadequate. I take issue with the member for Indi, who talked about how well run the RDA Fund was. As we discovered after the election, with project after project, contracts were left to languish. With projects announced under rounds 2, 3 and 4, some 53 projects were left unfunded, with no contracts signed and no intention by the previous government to deliver.
In the case of one project, I spoke to a local council and they were shunted from departmental officer to departmental officer. It was an exasperating and frustrating process. In the case of a round 5 project in my region in Geelong, the project did not even go to the RDA board. The Barwon South West RDA board is meant to review and scrutinise all projects—and I think this is an important point to make to the member for Indi—and it was absolutely disgraceful that the board never saw the project before it was announced by Labor. Yes, there were plenty of announcements, but, when it came to delivery we saw Labor incompetence time after time. In my electorate of Corangamite there was a funding announcement of $4.17 million for a great project, the Golden Plains intensive agriculture project. This was a very important project and one that we have now fixed. Since being elected, in so many respects for these projects we have fixed Labor's mess. We are proudly funding that project and many others, which will deliver 775 jobs over 10 years and generate $160 million worth of investment. In many cases, we had to go in there and fix Labor's mess. But in relation to round 5 projects, the subject of this motion, what we have seen from Labor is no intention, in many respects, to actually even proceed.
An opposition member: Rubbish!
I hear the interjection 'Rubbish!' Well, it is not rubbish, and I will tell you why. The caretaker period was announced on 6 August, and in my electorate all the projects were announced in the caretaker period. Where is the intention to fund the projects? The government is prohibited from entering into a funding agreement during the caretaker period, so it is an unfunded election promise. There were some very good projects—the Torquay North Family and Children's Centre project; the Banyul-Warri Fields stage 2 soccer facility lighting project; 'Lighting the Way' in the Queenscliffe borough; the Smythesdale business and wellbeing hub extension; and the Moorabool Street Bike Safe project, the one that Bike Safe pushed very hard for. There was no intention by Labor to deliver. If there had been an intention, guess what Labor would have done. It would have announced the projects and ensured that the agreements were signed. So it was simply an election commitment. But what is even worse is that, at the time these projects were announced, Labor announced they were fully funded and they would be delivered. That was not only misleading; it was a complete misrepresentation. So again we have seen utter incompetence by Labor in the way in which these projects have been delivered.
I remind the chamber here today that we are proudly committing to regional Australia in a whole range of different aspects. We have a very important Stronger Regions Fund—$200 million per year for five years. We have not said that these round 5 projects will not be considered, but we do require them to be resubmitted with proper governance and proper diligence so that we do not see—and I particularly make reference to the member for Indi—the sort of failure of governance and the sort of incompetence that we saw in relation to one particular project which never even went to the RDA board. That is an absolute disgrace. So there is $200 million a year over five years, $300 million for the new bridges renewal program and $16 billion for major regional roads. We are very proud of the commitment that we are making to regional Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended from 13:35 to 17:45
I rise to speak about a visit I made on 18 February to Thomas Carr College in my electorate. I have had the pleasure a few times since the election of meeting with Dr Andrew Watson, the college's principal. On this occasion I met with the college's high-achiever students from 2013, all of whom obtained an ATAR score above 90. I would like to congratulate those students: Vuong Phan, the 2013 college dux; Nicholas Mastos; Aaron Diker; Quynh Diep; Harsh Bhambra; and Isaac Lobo. These students made considerable sacrifices to achieve stunning results for the college. I wish these highly successful students, and all their peers from the graduating class of 2013, well in their plans for the future.
The college offers a broad curriculum, which is reflected in its arts acquisition program. I visited last October to attend the annual art show. I was struck by the talent of the students and the positive relationships between staff and students. The ceremony I attended recently also included the investiture of the college leaders. I congratulate those leaders: Abby McDonald, Nicholas Parella, Helena Carapina, Adrian Debrincat, Erin Sidwell and Jacob Sigismondi. I wish all in the school a terrific learning year.
School chaplaincy services play an important role for youth in our community, who face increasing pressures on family relationships, peer relationships, bullying, harassment, grief, loss and behaviour issues. If addressed early, preventive measures can be taken to minimise harm and promote good educational outcomes.
In Western Australia, YouthCARE oversees the successful national school chaplaincy program, which was established under the Howard government. I recently met with the CEO, Mr Stanley Jeyaraj, who outlined the proactive work undertaken by the organisation both locally and nationally. YouthCARE school chaplains provide pastoral care in the form of emotional, mental, physical and spiritual support to staff, students and school communities.
In my electorate of Moore YouthCARE supports some 16,821 students in 37 state schools. Of these, 17 schools have federally funded YouthCARE chaplains, while the remaining 20 schools rely on either state government or private sources of funding. Our community has supported YouthCARE through events such as the annual City of Wanneroo charity golf day, which has raised over $445,000 for chaplaincy over a decade. The Wanneroo Business Association has also contributed generously. In order for YouthCARE to continue providing school chaplaincy for 2015 to 2017, it is essential the federal funding be continued in the budget.
It was my pleasure to attend, from 5 to 7 March, the inaugural Australian American Leadership Dialogue meetings in Miami, Florida. They were discussions that covered a wide range of topics, as is usual with the AALD, under the Chatham House Rule. Among the topics discussed were the changing role of diversity in the United States, with Miami providing something of an example as to how the rest of the United States may be over the decades to come; issues of infrastructure financing, which both countries face; immigration reform; and the desire of both the United States and Australia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The meetings were also an opportunity to engage in discussion and innovation. It was commented that President Obama's focus on neuroscience will be important for Australia as we look to boost innovation. It an opportunity also, through the lens of Miami, to look to Latin America, where many Australian students are currently studying and Australian firms such as seek.com are operating.
There were many attendees, but I would like particularly to acknowledge Phillip Scanlan, Martin Adams and Julie Singer-Scanlan from the AALD; US ambassador John Berry; and the mayor of Miami, Tomas Regalado, who I hope will visit Perth and perhaps other Australian cities as part of a return visit next year.
Michael and Di Sullivan from the historic northern Tasmanian village of Evandale had a plan more than 30 years ago to put their village on the map. The Sullivans, along with the hardworking and long-serving Avondale Village Fair committee most ably led by president John Lewis, had no idea that the plan would prove quite as successful as it has. A couple of weekends ago Evandale staged its 32nd Evandale Village Fair and the national penny-farthing championships. The event had 75 starters for a range of novelty and high-speed penny-farthing races around the streets of the village. A delighted Mrs Sullivan was particularly pleased that 25 of the 75 competitors were first-time entrants, whilst others have come up through the ranks from junior competitions. A number came also from interstate and some from overseas to be part of the unusual cycling racing weekend.
I was delighted to present a number of ribbons during the day, and it should be noted that the winner of the main race of the day, the 2014 national penny-farthing championship, was Ryan Sullivan, one of Mr and Mrs Sullivan's sons. Ryan started his cycling career on penny-farthings and has gone on to compete internationally on more conventional bikes. Competitors at this year's penny-farthing championships ranged in age from as young as six to well over 70 years of age. I was pleased to sponsor this year's novice race as well as one of the intermediate sprints that went past my office in the road race on the Sunday. This is indeed a wonderful and unique event.
Yet again civilian Defence staff are fearing for their job security after reports over the weekend that up to 3,000 Defence Materiel Organisation staff may be in line to lose their jobs. Last Friday the defence minister was reported as saying that the DMO had shortcomings. We have heard reports again and again that the Commission of Audit will recommend at least partial privatisation of the defence department's procurement arm. The Abbott government has had the Commission of Audit's interim report for almost a month but it is not released its recommendations, so who knows what the future is for this agency. All I do know is that DMO staff have been told there has been no decision made yet about their futures. The uncertainty is wreaking havoc on staff morale and the morale of my constituents. The Canberra Times has reported that DMO managers are complaining about private companies sniffing around their staff in anticipation of these job losses.
DMO is home to highly skilled specialist staff. They are dedicated public servants who have chosen to serve their country, their government and their democracy rather than taking higher paid jobs in the private sector. My will concern is that when the job cuts come we will lose these highly skilled staff from the Public Service and will lose them for good. Minister Johnston has said that he wants to see excellence and cost-effectiveness in DMO, but how does he think we will achieve excellence if we lose our best staff? The Abbott government needs to come clean on the future of these staff and that of their families.
Recently the Property Council of Australia released the My City: The People's Verdict 2013 report. The report outlines the opinion of 5,400 people on the livability of their city and how the government performed on urban policy. They rate Canberra No. 1 and they rank Darwin No. 10, just in front of Sydney and Perth. I was astounded at Darwin's last-place rating of the most livable city in the country. However, we did have Territory Labor and federal Labor increasing the cost of living, which I think is a big factor in this ranking. If I was surveyed, Darwin would certainly be No. 1. I think Darwin is best city in the world to live in. In fact, many of my colleagues here have called me the member for paradise, something I am very proud of. Darwin is like living in a tropical oasis all year round. It is the best place in the world. We do not need to hear what the Property Council of Australia think. All of you, give me a cheer if you think Darwin is the best place to live.
Government members: Hear, hear.
The people are lovely and I have never seen such a great sense of community and belonging in Darwin. You have heard it here: Darwin is the best place, No. 1 in the country.
I rise today in the House to raise concerns about funding for financial counselling services across this nation. Although we will not know until the budget, there is a lot of concern within the financial counselling sector about what might occur with respect to rumours of cuts in the order of 20 to 30 per cent. The importance of financial counselling—particularly in the current environment, where so many people are losing their jobs—would be understood by all members. The fact is that we continually see people in our offices under severe financial stress, and it is often imperative that they get the advice that they need to ensure that they can safeguard their personal circumstances.
So I would urge the government to be very careful and think twice before it moves down the track of cutting support in the financial counselling sector. When we look at the funding in this area, we are talking about a situation nationwide where funding is roughly $20 million from the Commonwealth and some $23 million from state and territory governments, so you will see a direct impact, probably beyond the actual cut, across the board if these changes are made.
When we look at financial counselling, we can see a situation where some 2.5 million Australians, some 13 per cent of the population, live in households of high financial stress, and there are some 960 financial counsellors, roughly one for every 2,600 people in financial difficulty. Face to face, they see between 80,000 and 100,000 clients per year, and there are 120,000 calls to the 1800 number. This is essential to providing the services needed to ensure people can deal with the difficult financial circumstances they are facing at this time.
I was delighted last Friday when the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, was able to visit Camberwell South Primary School in order to conduct a mock parliament. The senior students debated the No Homework Bill, and it was a terrific opportunity for them to understand our system of government. It is not every day, though, that you get to learn about our system of government from the Speaker of the House of Representatives herself, so it was a wonderful privilege. I hope that, by conducting the role-play, students gained a greater understanding not just of the process but of how fortunate we are that all Australians are represented through their democratically elected members of parliament. I genuinely believe it is important to encourage and inspire young people to participate fully in society, including in public life, and what better role model is there than the Speaker of the House of Representatives herself, someone who has had a very distinguished parliamentary career?
She also had the opportunity to speak with senior students across a number of schools in my electorate about leadership. I hosted a morning tea and invited students from Presentation College, St Kevin's College, Sacre Coeur school, De La Salle College, Lauriston Girls School and Oakleigh Grammar School to speak with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and hear her story not only as a shadow minister and a minister but now as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I have always maintained that it is important to value leadership and to inspire today's youth to aim high, and I am very confident that, after our visit in the electorate on Friday, they have been very much inspired.
I rise today to mention Mr Vissa Esan, who was tragically stabbed to death in what appears to be a random act of senseless violence outside his real estate business in Pendle Hill in my electorate of Greenway last Thursday. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Esan on several occasions. He ran a successful business in the Greenway electorate and he was a much-loved member of the local Tamil community and the community at large. Mr Esan's wife, Shanika, is expecting their first child, and tragically that child will never know their father.
Mr Esan was known as a friendly and generous man who helped anyone in need and always found ways to offer his assistance. Mr Esan was born in Sri Lanka and came to Australia 20 years ago. Since that time, he has helped new arrivals find accommodation and given them guidance in their new country. He was also well known for assisting his country of birth as it rebuilds after civil war, demonstrating his great generosity of spirit and his advocacy for peace and reconciliation. As reported by AAP on 14 March, one of his colleagues said:
He was a really popular guy and community leader. He was very kind-hearted and helped all his fellow Tamil people. We all loved him, he was a great guy
On the eve of Mr Esan's funeral, my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. By all accounts he was a generous and kind man who served his community and provided for his family. Finally, my heart goes out to his wife, Shanika. I cannot begin to imagine what she is going through at this time and on what will be such a sad day tomorrow.
A 23-year-old Aboriginal woman born brain damaged with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is languishing in a Western Australian jail—in Kalgoorlie, in fact. She has been there 18 months. She has not been convicted of any offence. She was found incapable of pleading given her cognitive impairment. The problem, of course, is not a singular one; there are at least 30 Aboriginal Australians with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Australian prisons. I would argue, in fact, that there are probably many more but that they have gone without proper diagnosis. The very sad case for Rosie Anne Fulton is that she has lived the most horrendous life since her early days in Alice Springs, where she was abused from the earliest age. She wants to go back to be close to her family, but she has just recently been denied the possibility of going to a special care home in the Northern Territory around Alice Springs.
I want to draw attention to the foetal alcohol spectrum disorder condition. It is the biggest cause of at-birth permanent brain damage in Australia. It is 100 per cent preventable: if you do not drink while you are pregnant, there is no chance of your baby being born with cognitive impairment, brain damage and other physical impairments which are permanent and irreversible. We do not even mandate alcohol labelling in this country. We do have a national strategy. It requires being put into place, and I ask that this government move more quickly on putting the foetal alcohol spectrum disorder national program into place.
On last Tuesday, 11 March, I had the very great pleasure of speaking at the inaugural general meeting of the Cultural Bridges community action group at the Thomastown Library together with Councillor Kris Pavlidis of the City of Whittlesea. Kris, along with Jemal Ahmet of Whittlesea Community Connections, started this project in 2007, so it was terrific to share the launch with her. I would like to extend my thanks to Nessie Sayar, secretary of the group, for the invitation to and organisation of the event, as well as all the residents, especially the committee members, who attended. I pay particular tribute to Odi Gerzina, the president, who chaired a very large meeting effectively with charm, humour and also purpose. I continue to be struck by the tireless efforts of passionate volunteers and compassionate citizens within the Scullin electorate.
The city of Whittlesea contains a culturally and linguistically diverse population with nearly half its residents coming from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Whittlesea also has a large Indigenous population, and there is great interest across cultures. The Cultural Bridges project has been underway for some time. The inaugural meeting places it on a sound foundation to reach its goal: the establishment of a centre. This will be a place that encourages our diverse communities to come together to share traditions and experience to learn together from one another. It builds on the great strengths of our multiculturalism and will facilitate a cross-cultural engagement that builds understanding and respect. I commend the work of all involved and look forward to the future progress of this wonderful action group towards a vibrant centre.
I rise today to acknowledge the Mitchie Day Club, which is doing outstanding work with elderly residents in the northern suburbs of my electorate of Ryan. It is hard to believe that the Mitchie Day Club has already reached its first anniversary. The club has grown significantly since it was created, and more than 50 per cent of its members are from the veteran community. I was delighted to join with members of the club recently to celebrate their first anniversary.
The club meets every Wednesday, with volunteers working tirelessly to provide a program which includes tai chi, mental stimulation with quizzes and games, and entertainment as well as a tasty morning tea and lunch. The club meets at the Seventh Day Adventist hall in Mitchelton and is sponsored by the Gaythorne RSL and supported by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The club received a $3,000 grant under the federal government's Veteran and Community Grants Program. This grant will help the club undertake a series of bus trips to reduce the social isolation of those living in the local area.
I commend the club for the work they do locally and thank them for this vital community service.
I would like to pay credit to Windale Men's Shed. Windale Men's Shed was one of the first men's sheds established in Australia, and it has been a role model for other sheds throughout Australia. The Australian Men's Shed Association grew out of Windale Men's Shed, and I would like to give particular credit to David Helmers, who is now the CEO of the Australian Men's Shed Association and also Lake Macquarie Citizen of the Year; and to Roger Greenham and Don Spence, who recently passed away. All these people have worked very hard to see the Windale Men's Shed and AMSA become very viable organisations. It is because of the hard work that they have put in that there are a plethora of Men's Sheds in the Shortland electorate. There is the Swansea Men's Shed, the San Remo Men's Shed, the Belmont Men's Shed, the Redhead Men's Shed and, soon to be operating, the Mannering Park Men's Shed.
I call on the government to give ongoing support to the Windale Men's Shed, particularly at this time, when they are looking at increasing their operations, along with AMSA. AMSA must stay. Without AMSA, the Men's Shed movement is in danger of collapsing.
I rise this evening to congratulate the Lugarno Progress Association on its annual dinner, which I had the good fortune to attend, on 11 March. The Lugarno Progress Association, in my electorate, has been around since 1922, serving the Lugarno community by working on important issues such as environmental issues in the area, making sure that important services like bus services are available, lobbying government as appropriate and attending to a whole range of other issues, including a dam in the area, where the association had a great impact in getting some good work done in the community.
I would like to congratulate Joan Curtis, the president; Ross Simon, the vice president; Tony Corcoran, the minute secretary; Ken Mason, the treasurer; Sandy Russell, who edits the newsletter, which comes out frequently; and Henry King, Keith Miller and Tony Alifano, all of whom are on the committee.
The dinner was a terrific night down at the Lugarno Seafood Restaurant on the Georges River. There was fantastic conversation and entertainment by a jazz band, which played a number of tunes across the evening. The Lugarno Progress Association do a great job and I am very pleased to be able to congratulate them this evening.
Today I rise to let the chamber know about a young man in my electorate, Mitch Bourke, who yesterday walked nearly 20 kilometres through Bendigo to raise money for an autism resource centre. After funding fell through for this very important project, Mitch decided that he would walk from one side of Bendigo to the other to raise money. He set a goal of $25,000, and I am very proud to announce that he exceeded that goal through sponsorships and donations from our local community.
When I first met Mitch, he said that the centre was important so that other kids and families did not go through what he and his family went through a few years ago. Before Mitch was diagnosed, he said that life at school and home was tough. He said he was violent and was very unhappy. He felt frustrated and sometimes thought of suicide. Today, Mitch is very different and he believes that the centre will help other families.
Yesterday's walk was a success—so successful that the idea is now being picked up nationally. From next year, other cities and other regional centres will engage in the campaign. Yesterday, when Mitch crossed the finish line, many people talked about having tears in their eyes, including his mother, Mychelle. She said that Mitch has got the word out: 'To see autism in a positive light is amazing and will help so many families.' I am proud to have sponsored Mitch and I look forward to joining the team next year, when we do the walk again in Bendigo.
Last Friday evening, I was pleased to take part in one of the many relays for life that occur all around Australia. The relay is a fundraising, community-building initiative of the Cancer Council, and the funds raised go directly to patient support programs and further research. A local event, the Casey Cardinia Relay for Life is the largest in Victoria and more than 100 teams have been taking part in recent years. The relay is staged over 24 hours and each team undertakes to have somebody on the track with their baton at all times. There is entertainment throughout the night and it is a fantastic community event for the family.
The donations to the Casey Cardinia Relay for Life are still being counted, but at this stage it is expected that the 2014 amount will surpass the 2013 amount, which was an incredible half a million dollars. I walked with a team of over 40 people, known as Paula's Pals, which was organised and led by one of my constituents, Suzie Lowater. This team, like so many others, has come together to remember and honour a special local person, Paula Teuwsen, who died very unexpectedly of cancer in October last year. Paula had been taking part in the Casey Cardinia Relay for Life for a number of years, doing her bit to raise money for cancer research. Again, I would like to thank all the organisers for their great work and all the supporters and sponsors. It was a great night.
I rise today with a little less hair than normal, courtesy of the World's Greatest Shave. Last Tuesday I visited Grace Lutheran College at Rothwell for a tour of the school. It was during this tour that the principal, Mrs Ruth Butler, mentioned to me that her students were fundraising for the Leukaemia Foundation and were participating in the World's Greatest Shave. I was very impressed when I saw so many students involved. In fact, a total of 60 students shaved their hair, four boys shaved their legs and hundreds of students and the odd teacher also had their hair coloured. Grace Lutheran College has a longstanding history with raising money for the World's Greatest Shave. Students have been raising money for the past 14 years, and this year they raised $18,525.30—what a fantastic achievement!
Every day 31 Australians get the devastating news that they have leukaemia or other blood related disorders. These blood cancers can affect anyone of any age at any time. I would like to send a big congratulations to the principal, the teachers and, of course, the students of Grace Lutheran College. I was glad that I was able to participate in such a great fundraising activity. Well done, Grace Lutheran.
I rise to speak about the community response to the fact that I have put on the line that we need a new dam in Calare. Mike from Parkes said:
The Needles Gap Dam near Canowindra. Just what the area needs! It will take a lot of push to make it happen but that's what sorts the average politician and the great!!! What we need is men with vision and courage.
Grant from Perthville said: 'Dams like this should have been made years ago.' I could not agree more. Robert from Orange said:
Thanks for pushing the Needles Dam proposal. Of course if our electorate is to grow we are going to need new infrastructure, new dams, new industries and new jobs.
The feedback has been coming in from all over, including from Raymond in Port Macquarie, which is a long way from Calare. He said:
I must commend you, you are a man of vision. You remind me of myself—
he is a modest type—
My passion is Water Harvesting and what it can do for Australia.
And this is just a small snippet of the feedback.
I have been humbled and further motivated by the positive response from the community, from people who would get no personal benefit from it but know that we do need it. Our region needs it now and for the future. But this not only requires vision from locals; it requires vision from people here in Canberra.
In 2011 the Bligh Labor government in Queensland gave approval to BMA to operate a 100 per cent fly in, fly out workforce at its Caval Ridge and Daunia mines. What 100 per cent fly in, fly out means is that the worker who could drive from his home to the mine in 15 minutes, if he lived in a mining town, or two to three hours if they lived in Mackay, must instead drive to the airport, fly to Brisbane, change planes and fly back to the Moranbah airport, then catch a company bus and, for those who actually live locally in that mining town, live in a camp for a week with no physical contact with their family who are living just 15 minutes up the road. It is crazy.
At the height of the boom, 100 per cent FIFO made sense, but, in the current economic climate, 100 per cent FIFO is simply not needed at all. Even the local Labor MP in Mackay, a man who sat in the Bligh cabinet and gave approval for the 100 per cent fly in, fly out in the first place, is now trying to absolve himself, criticising 100 per cent FIFO as 'postcode apartheid'. Far from being a de Klerk or a Mandela, the local Labor member served under Anna Bligh—the equivalent of Daniel Francois Malan, the man who actually brought in apartheid. He served there as a cabinet minister, a decision maker, in the equivalent of the Afrikaner government when it comes to that analogy on FIFO. The damage was done by Labor and it can now be fixed by BMA. (Time expired)
Just recently I had the pleasure of attending the 16th birthday celebrations for the Logan City community cadets. They were first started in 1998 by a group of parents from the local community which included serving and ex-serving members of the ADF. The Logan cadet unit has an ethos of 'serve, learn and remember'.
In particular, I would like to congratulate the cadets who received awards on this particular day. They were no other than Daniel Ramsay, Clayton Thompson, Corey Judge, Jackson Keene, Jarred Griffin, Ryan Tew, Alysa Chase-Currier, Bradley Kent, Jye Connoly, Joshua Underhill, Lindsay McCreadie, Jesse Smith and Jack Derges. On the day, Pam McCreadie was also promoted to staff sergeant; Tracy Derges was promoted to lieutenant; and Aaron Chase-Currier was farewelled after no less than 12 years of service with the cadets.
Congratulations to the Logan City community cadets, led by the commanding officer, Trevor Schulze. There is still a job in what they are doing in offering a well-structured and well-organised cadet unit for their local children to be part of. I would also like to congratulate the parents and support group, led by no other than Raelene Griffin and vice-president Mrs Lyn Bell, because they represent the backbone of the organisation responsible for most of the funding and the day-to-day activities. Congratulations to the individual company commanders, officers Andrew Griffin and Brett McCreadie, who volunteer their time and expertise in their roles as mentors to teach the young cadets as they train. I commend the whole of the unit for their outstanding performance.
I would like to speak this evening about the important work that is being undertaken by GriefLine, which is an organisation operating from Bentleigh, right in my electorate of Hotham. GriefLine has been operating for 25 years now, and it offers a free grief counselling service. It is the only free grief counselling service anywhere in Australia. Organisations that work with people who might be grieving, like Lifeline, beyondblue and the Cancer Council, continually refer people to this important service. Its mission is to listen, care and support those experiencing grief at any stage of life. Last year—would you believe it?—GriefLine served 50,000 people who contacted that organisation through various means. It has expanded its work beyond simply receiving phone calls to online assistance, and it runs forums around different parts of Australia. A particular focus in recent times has been working with rural Australians.
I want to mention two important people who work at this organisation. Catherine Cini, who was the 2012 Bendigo Bank Community Humanitarian, who runs the organisation, is ably assisted by Kathy Wells, who was our 2014 Glen Eira Citizen of the Year. Together they run this organisation on a shoestring. They support 170 volunteers to do this important work. I am supporting them at the moment in working with local councils to find new premises, which is urgent, but that will not stand in the way of the important work that they continue to do.
Recently I attended a very special medal presentation. It was the Graywood Medal presentation to the family of Chief Petty Officer Kane Vandenberg, aged 46. Kane's wife, Margaret, accepted the medal. Their sons, Josh, Hayden and Lachlan, were acknowledged. On the day, Margaret said: 'To receive this medal is such a significant recognition of Kane's 29-year service in the Navy. He would have been very humbled and would have felt undeserving. Kane lived his life according to the Navy values of honour, honesty, courage, integrity and loyalty.' Margaret explained that Kane did his good deeds by stealth, never announcing that he helped so many people in so many different ways. Mrs Vandenberg asked her son Hayden what this meant to him, and he said, 'They aren't given out lightly, and it's a sign of respect for Dad's life.' He added: 'It would be a great idea if this medal was recognised among all personnel. In the end they all make the same sacrifice, and in the end they deserve the same recognition.'
The Graywood Medal is an association medal. Currently there is no official medal that recognises the service of Australian personnel who are permanently suffering or those who have given their lives. The US has the Purple Heart; the British, the Elizabeth medal; the Canadians, the Sacrifice Medal—but Australia has nothing. The Graywood Medal has been presented to many veterans, widows and family members from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Mrs Vandenberg was grateful that Kane had been chosen as a worthy recipient and said: 'I am hopeful that this presentation will be the beginning of the Graywood Medal's journey to official recognition under the Australian honours and awards.'
This Friday, 21 March, will be Harmony Day, a day that Australia celebrates the diversity of the cultural backgrounds we all come from. Friday is also the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Both of these initiatives are important to promote Australia's modern and diverse society, with approximately 45 per cent of Australians born overseas or with at least one parent born overseas. I have the honour of representing one of the most multicultural seats in Australia and am proud to be the member for the diverse communities within the electorate of Reid. While Harmony Day is an important date on the calendar in promoting Australia's modern and diverse society, in Reid every day is Harmony Day.
Just last week I had the honour of welcoming the Prime Minister to Auburn, in the west of my electorate, to promote this government's initiatives to combat youth unemployment and an exciting project that the Inner West Skills Centre is undertaking to combat youth unemployment in the local community. In what was a great representation of the diverse electorate of Reid, the Prime Minister met with representatives from Afghan, Chinese, Korean, Sudanese and Turkish backgrounds, amongst many more. This event was a great success and I would like to congratulate the Inner West Skills Centre and all involved for the excellent work they have done and continue to do in the local area for all the people of ethnic backgrounds. This centre is just one example of how in Reid we do not talk about multiculturalism; we live it.
I rise to highlight the importance of Qantas, not only as Australia's long-serving national carrier but as a major tourist icon in my electorate of Maranoa. Qantas is an iconic brand and a major promoter of Australian food and wine. In fact, it is the third-largest buyer of Australian wine in Australia, behind the retailers Woolworths and Coles. Its 30,000 new uniforms contain Australian wool, so Qantas is very proud and provides quite a significant stimulus to the rural economy as well. In my electorate alone, the Qantas Founders Museum, which was established in 2002, injects approximately $9 million of economic activity each year. It also attract some 35,000 domestic and international visitors and shares Qantas's proud and illustrious history with the world.
In 1998, 'We still call Australia home' was a phrase made famous by Qantas. Qantas calls Australia home; the Qantas Founders Museum calls Longreach in my electorate home; and the people of this great nation are proud to call Qantas our national carrier. Qantas is an important part of our national history and one which this government intends to see go from strength to strength. I call on the Labor Party to support the bill that has passed the lower house to make sure Qantas does go from strength to strength and to get out of the way for the benefit of this wonderful national carrier, which provides so much stimulus to rural economies and promotes Australia wherever it flies around the world. I am proud to be the representative of Qantas and the Qantas Founders Museum in this parliament.
Just recently I was in the wonderful position of being able to say goodbye to Dr Michael Davey. Dr Michael Davey has had an incredible journey in his life. He was a foster child and was abused in his childhood. He ended up writing a book called Journey of Hope, which has now sold over 1,000 editions, so he has done extremely well with his book. Very many people in the community of Gilmore are so proud of him and what he has done. He became a maths teacher and was a very successful maths teacher, but just recently he decided to ride across Australia, raising money for children with cancer. So, on a sunny Sunday morning, he set off from Nowra, outside the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, with his merry band of 10 riders and his wife. They intend to ride right across Australia raising money for this very worthy cause, and I am very proud to have sponsored him for $500 towards this magnificent program. I wish him all the very best as he journeys across our nation, making the awareness of children with cancer much more significant. We all know that the impact of cancer on the lives of children is huge. We see children's wards where children are suffering, and, while they can stay happy in most of their life, it is important that we each recognise the contribution that we make to their health and happiness and make sure we raise enough funds for equipment, family care and family holidays in this situation.
I rise tonight to talk about St Patrick's Day and the fact that I represent the seat of Lalor. I have been prompted by Deputy Speaker Goodenough, who has suggested that if I say Lalor often enough in this place it will continue and people will pick up that it is an Irish name and an Irish word.
Honourable members interjecting—
I note also that the member for Lalor would love to attend this evening's St Patrick's Day event at Old Parliament House which, I believe, will be lit up in green to celebrate this very special day. I know that the member for Hotham beside me also shares my Irish heritage. You will note that we both chose black and white to wear today—sometimes having an Irish surname is enough and you do not need green accoutrements to go with it. As the member for Lalor, I will continue to correct everyone who says 'Laylor' in this place and see if we cannot get an acknowledgement of the great Irish Australian Peter Lalor.
I rise tonight to quickly talk about a great sporting organisation within the electorate of Petrie—that is, the Redcliffe Police Citizens Youth Club. I would like to acknowledge Sgt Peter Parkes from the Redcliffe Police Citizens Youth Club and Mr Noel Powell who dedicate hours of their time every week on a volunteer basis to help the youth on the Redcliffe peninsula. They are doing a fantastic job raising money. They are about to do another program called Time 4 Kids, where they lock up people like me—and my new haircut which I have just had done, so I will look good there! They raise lots of money every year for local youth on the Redcliffe peninsula.
At the Redcliffe Police Citizens Youth Club there are hundreds of volunteers in different sports and thousands of club members. I would particularly like to acknowledge the Hantokan Judo Club. I would like to also acknowledge Mr Darryl Keys, Mr Kelly Croton, Mr Brad Robinson, Mr Kent Bulger and Mrs Lindsay Bulger. These people have been volunteering with judo for the last 25 years; literally hundreds peoples have come through their club. They are helping boys and girls become young men and young women. They deserve to be congratulated. Thank you to the Hantokan Judo Club for what they do.
It is with great honour that I rise today to talk about an event I attended on Saturday morning for the Australian Relief Organisation, a wonderful organisation based in Auburn run by the Turkish community in my electorate. The Turkish community is a wonderful multicultural success story. They arrived here in the late 60s due to the Cyprus wars. Now the second and third generation of that community are working out ways they can give back. It was great to attend their factory in Auburn to load a container of aid that will find its way to Cambodia, which is just recovering from excessive monsoonal rain. To think that this community who came to our shores with pretty much the clothes on their backs have within 40 years embedded themselves in Sydney's greater west and are now looking at ways that they can give back to not only our community locally, which they do day-in and day-out, but also around the world.
To Cihan Tumen, who is the president of the ARO; to Ahmet Keskin, who works with Affinity Intercultural Foundation; to Mehmet Saral, who is with Galaxy; to the Feza Foundation; and for all the amazing work that the Turkish migrants who call Australia home in my electorate do not only in my electorate but, as Saturday proved, around the world, I say congratulations to you and long may it continue.
As I was saying earlier in my other 90-seconder, I want to put on record that they have made a mistake with the report, because Darwin is actually the most liveable place in the country. My colleagues that are here will verify that. If you had a choice between Canberra and Darwin, really? How many barramundi can you get in Canberra? Not very many. How many tropical oases or how much tropical rain can you get in Canberra? Not very many. I just wanted to have that—
The beer is colder in Canberra.
The beer is not colder in Canberra. The beer is cold and the fishing is fantastic in Darwin.
An honourable member: The Northern Territory stubby.
So thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to verify once again that Darwin is the best place to live in the country.
The time for members' statements has concluded.
I rise to speak tonight on the issue of climate change. As the House knows, the historic Australian climate change legislation, passed under the previous government, has seen significant improvements in our environment. Electricity sector emissions fell by 5.5 per cent over the year to September 2013; emissions from companies covered by the carbon pricing mechanism fell by seven per cent in 2012-13. Inflation was within the Reserve Bank's target band. Growth has continued. Productivity has modestly picked up. And we have not seen any Australian cities wiped off the map. The introduction of the Australian carbon pricing scheme was done in a manner which accords with textbook economics. While putting a price on the negative externality, that of carbon pollution contributing to climate change, we reduced income taxes for low- and middle-income earners to ensure that they became no worse off.
Labor went to the last election pledging to link our carbon price with international schemes. If we compare scrapping emissions pricing with moving to a floating price, the impact on inflation in 2014-15 is less than one-quarter of a percentage point. The government in Australia is running in very much a different direction from most countries around the globe.
A recent report by the global legislators organisation GLOBE, co-authored by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, covered about nine-tenths of global emissions. That report catalogued almost 500 laws to tackle climate change—including: flagship legislation in developing countries including Bolivia, El Salvador and Mozambique; and key action in major economies such as China and Mexico. Indeed the report found that 64 out of the 66 countries had put in place or were establishing significant climate or energy legislation. Only two countries were backsliding: Japan and Australia. Japan is stepping away from some of its prior commitments as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and scaling back its contribution to nuclear energy. Perhaps that is understandable given the circumstances of the Fukushima tragedy. Less understandable is Australia, which is walking away from carbon pricing for straight-out political reasons.
We had a consensus in this country for carbon pricing until one of the great tipping points in this debate: the victory by the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, over the Minister for Communications, Mr Turnbull, in the Liberal Party room by one vote saw the bipartisan consensus for climate change collapse. Now the coalition are pushing for direct action, a scheme which Frank Jotzo and Paul Burke have noted is an attractive political phrase; the combination of two very positive sounding words. But it is unfortunately fundamentally flawed. The reason for that is that, unlike carbon pricing, Direct action does not allow us to pick the lowest-hanging fruit of emissions reduction opportunities. As the OECD has estimated, subsidy approaches involve an economic cost per unit of emissions reduction more than ten times higher than under carbon pricing. Because the baseline of what a firm would have emitted otherwise is impossible to verify, the result is that firms are probably delaying emissions reduction investment right now even as a result of the talk of direct action.
Direct action is a short-term policy with promised payments for five years worth of claimed energy reductions rather than the long-term solution of carbon pricing. While carbon pricing assists the government's bottom line, making a $3.6 billion contribution to cash receipts in the fiscal year 2012-13, direct action is funded by revenue from existing taxes. What we saw under Labor was a tax switch—and I emphasise the word 'switch' because when I spoke about this previously I was misquoted in a Liberal Party attack ad. A tax switch sees lower taxes on work and higher taxes on pollution. The reverse system will involve higher taxes on work in order to subsidise polluters. As Professor Jotzo and Dr Burke note:
Direct Action appears to be an ill-considered clunker, like the hastily chosen gift you bring to your aunty’s fourth wedding ...
It is complex and bureaucratic as distinct from the simple, free-market solution of carbon pricing, which is, unsurprisingly, favoured by the World Bank, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund.
In a submission to the inquiry into the Direct Action Plan by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, Professor Ross Garnaut noted:
The Green Paper does not specify the objective of the Emissions Reduction Fund … The Green Paper makes no effort to meet the elementary requirements of good practice with new regulation:
As Professor Garnaut further noted:
Rather than a Green Paper, what is before the Senate is a shooting of the breeze: the raising of a few of the questions that would need to be answered along the way to preparing a Green Paper.
What we have at the moment is a proposal to get rid of a national cap. Without a national cap that we currently have under carbon pricing policies, the baselines and penalties need to set business facility by business facility. It is, as Professor Garnaut noted, 'a huge bureaucratic exercise'.
Professor Garnaut estimates that the lower bound for the budgetary deterioration as a result of shifting to direct action is $4 billion to $5 billion per annum and the upper bound extends several times above that. As a result of this, the emissions reduction targets, the five per cent bipartisan emissions reduction targets, are unlikely to be met, Professor Garnaut notes, unless the fund is as large a drain on budget expenditures as the sale of permits is now a contributor to public finances—that is even to get modest emissions reduction targets, but to meet the five per cent targets may well cost more than that.
The core of the problem is that the government is surrounded by climate change deniers. While the Prime Minister himself now says that he supports the science of climate change, having previously called it 'absolute crap', the renewable energy target is subject to review under a chair who is on the public record with statements that modern science is wrong in its knowledge that human activity is a major contributor to global warming. The scientific consensus around climate change is 95 per cent for anthropogenic climate change—about the level of certainty that scientists have that smoking causes cancer. The Prime Minister's No. 1 business adviser goes further still. In September of last year, Maurice Newman wrote in The Australian Financial Review claiming:
The CSIRO, for example, has 27 scientists dedicated to climate change. It and the weather bureau continue to propagate the myth of anthropological climate change and are likely to be background critics of the Coalition’s Direct Action policies.
These attacks on hardworking scientists are of a piece with the government's attacks on experts. This is a government that has never seen an expert that it did not want to attack. By contrast, under Labor we saw renewable energy grow. Under the renewable energy target, we saw more than a million households installing solar panels compared to only about 7,000 under the former Howard government, and we saw the creation of 8,000 to 16,000 jobs.
Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has described the Prime Minister's Direct Action scheme as 'bizarre' and when economists were polled on this at the Australian Conference of Economists a survey found that 86 per cent supported a carbon price or an emissions trading scheme with just six per cent supporting Direct Action. There is, as Matt Wade said at the time, 'near-unanimity among economists' for a market-based solution. That market-based solution is doing the job of reducing Australian emissions and Australia ought not be one of the only countries in the world that is backsliding on tackling climate change.
I rise this evening to speak about the carbon tax, the Australian Labor Party's ongoing support for this growth-destroying measure, and the blatant hypocrisy that drives Labor's representatives in the Northern Territory to continue to support this clearly unpopular tax.
I begin by reminding members opposite of the outcome of the September election—you lost. It was an election which was as much as anything a referendum about the carbon tax. It saw the Labor government—the divided, dispirited, diabolical Labor government—swept from office and the coalition returned to the Treasury benches to clean up the unholy mess that Labor left behind.
The Australian electorate and the voters in Solomon sent a very clear message: they wanted the carbon tax repealed; they wanted the mining tax repealed; and they wanted to get the economy going again, without the constraints of Labor's egregious revenue measures. This message could not have been clearer. This makes the opposition's response to the electorate's very clear statement in September all the more bewildering. Labor has chosen to ignore not only the community but to blatantly disregard that very clear call for change and to continue as if nothing has happened. Well, something has happened. Leader of the Opposition, member for Lingiari, Senator Peris, something has happened—you are now on the opposition benches and it is time you took your heads out of the sand, removed your blinkers and acknowledged that the carbon tax's days are numbered. When you have done that, the Leader of the Opposition should get his senators, including Senator Peris, to vote to repeal the carbon tax, because that is what Australians wanted. The Leader of the Opposition and his Senate colleagues are what is standing between taxation relief for businesses and families, a massive boost to the economy and a substantial increase in consumer confidence. What the members opposite have to do is explain to Australians why they do not support lower taxes and lower prices. The member for Lingiari and Senator Peris have to tell Territorians why they refuse to follow the very clear instructions to remove the cost burden of the carbon tax that is placed on every business, every family and every worker in the Northern Territory. This is the most disgraceful display of political arrogance that I have ever seen and each and every one on the opposition benches should hang their heads in shame.
My electorate of Solomon is small geographically, with a higher cost of living than southern states due in part to the tyranny of distance and in part to the failure of both federal and Territory Labor governments. But the carbon tax was an additional cost burden that the majority of hardworking families, the people buying or renting a home, and the thousands of businesses in Solomon should never, ever had to endure. Figures show that organisations in the Territory have been hit with a carbon tax bill of over $66 million. That is $66 million that has gone out of the Territory economy and into the hands of Treasury bureaucrats in Canberra.
By far the largest contribution to the carbon tax rip-off was the Power and Water Corporation, which has taken a $23-million hit. This is the same power and water organisation that has massive financial problems and just last week lost power for up to 12 hours in every home and business between Darwin and Katherine. The last thing Power and Water needed was a carbon tax bill that puts additional pressure on its capacity to deliver services at a competitive rate for Territorians. As well as Power and Water, Santos QNT pay a carbon tax bill of $0.5 million, Newmont pays a bill of $1.5million, and EDL NGD paid a $4.6 million carbon tax bill.
What adds insult to injury is that those businesses have been paying the carbon tax and the householders and business operators have been slugged additionally in their power bills, and it does not even work. The carbon tax simply does not work. Despite a $7.6 billion carbon tax bill, emissions for the past 12 months barely changed—by 0.1 per cent. It is an absolute joke.
As I said earlier, while federal Labor were taxing Territorians through the nose, their Northern Territory counterparts were hurting through their incompetence and stupidity. Under Territory Labor, house prices skyrocketed because not enough land was being released to match demand with supply. And, while they were doing that, they racked up record levels of debt that they left for the Country Liberal government to clean up. Does this scenario sound familiar?
So it was with some interest that I noted a speech made by the Labor Northern Territory senator, the new Senator Peris, during the last parliamentary sittings, during which she tried to absolve the former Labor government from blame for cost-of-living issues in my electorate. This scandalous piece of deception deserves a response. The senator's arguments were based on a substantial lie. The senator tried to assert that power price increases brought in by the Territory Country Liberal government to clear up Power and Water Corporation's dire financial state increased power bills by $2,000 a year. This is simply untrue, and the senator should explain where she got those dodgy, deceptive figures from. The increase in average electricity bills for residential customers ranges from $9 to $19 per week based on a total 30 per cent increase that was initially announced late in 2012. This was then revised down to 20 per cent with two additional five per cent increases to follow over the following two years. This equates to an added yearly amount of between $468 and $998 for residential customers—an increase, yes, but not of the size claimed by Senator Peris.
It is also worth noting that pensioners will only pay half the set tariff increases and the community service obligation that stabilises remote and regional power prices has remained unchanged. Power and Water Corporation when presented with the senator's figures responded:
The $2,000 figure … is excessive and non-reflective of the actual tariff increases.
I think that is bureaucratic speak for 'what a load of rubbish'!
The senator went on to claim, using the incorrect $2,000 figure as a benchmark, that only six per cent of recent power price increases could be attributed to the carbon tax. Wrong again. In fact, using the figure of an annual household power bill increase of $468 as a base—the figure supplied by Power and Water Corporation—the actual impact of the carbon tax is closer to 30 per cent.
The senator is new to this place and still has her L-plates on. But that is no excuse for fabricating the facts to support an argument that does not stack up. My advice to the senator is: stop ducking, stop weaving, stop trying to avoid the truth and just get on and repeal the carbon tax. She has the opportunity. She said that she was going to stand up for Territorians, and she is not standing up for Territorians. Territorians want the carbon tax removed. The senator has the opportunity to vote right now to remove the carbon tax and to stand up for Territorians. But what is she going to do? She needs to get on board and vote to repeal the carbon tax. She can do the right thing. The legislation is right before the Senate now. So I call on Senator Peris to be stronger than the member for Lingiari and vote for Territorians. Stand up for Territorians and vote to repeal the carbon tax.
There are many difficult issues that arise in politics and there is no doubt that West Australians dread hearing of shark attacks in our waters. It is also true that there has been a spike in shark attacks and fatalities in the last couple of years and that this has caused understandable alarm among beach goers and West Australians who engage in water activities. There has certainly been a sense of concern amongst the many of us West Australians who love to have recreation in our oceans. Over a 10-month period from July 2012 there are five people who are thought to have been killed off the WA coast by sharks and in the 12-month period to March 2013 there were eight shark attacks. This is in contrast to the annual average for the decade leading up to that, which was 4.4 attacks per year. So I do understand that Premier Colin Barnett wanted to be seen to be doing something.
But I have to say that his diving hook-first into the shark cull policy, a program to set up a string of baited drum lines to capture large sharks, was a big mistake. The Premier has seriously underestimated the intelligence of the electorate in playing to their understandable fears and concerns. He has also underestimated what I can only describe as wanting a fair go for sharks. Now, it is not a perspective that comes to me instinctively; I must say I am more of the 'let them eat flake' brigade. But people have a very strong sense of what is fair out there in the oceans. I do acknowledge that there is a sector of the community who do support the cull policy, but my sense is that the majority of people see it as a fruitless exercise that will kill a lot of sharks without making us one bit safer in the water.
The federal environment minister has played Pontius Pilate here and given Colin Barnett an exemption from the federal environmental laws to undertake the cull. The environment minister has used a clause in the national environmental law that was intended for circumstances involving defence, security and national emergencies, a very dubious use of that power here. There is also a case that this decision is contrary to our obligations under the UN Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. A recent correspondence from the convention secretariat said that the convention prohibits the taking of such species except under extraordinary circumstances and that 'the extraordinary circumstances clause in paragraph 5D of article 3 of the convention has not been invoked by a CMS party to the best of my knowledge'. This is a first that we have got.
Mr Barnett in my view has shown some of his legendary political autism here. He has misread the population. I do not just mean the usual suspects from the conservation groups and the western and inner suburbs but indeed, from my conversations with people right across Perth, there is a great resistance to this policy. So the Premier decided he was going to play a tough, decisive action man presenting the public with a decision that is largely considered a joke. It would have been much better to have a serious public dialogue before embarking on a response to the spike in attacks.
The majority of people I speak to across Perth say three things. They say, yes, there is a risk, but with seven fatalities over the last three years it is a ridiculously small risk to that which we face each day. They cite the deaths on roads in Western Australia; there were 524, compared to the seven over that same period. A study published in the Australasian Medical Journal found that the risk of being bitten by a shark while swimming off Perth in summer is just one in three million, or about the same odds as winning the lottery three times. Indeed, 21 Australians die in rips each year. So people get that. They know there is a risk, but they know that the risk of being taken by a shark when you utilise the waters is, really, when you consider it, a tiny risk.
The second point they make is that this is the sharks' domain, and they make this point very strongly. It is a quintessentially Australian live-and-let-live approach, and I have been quite surprised at the strength of this value in the community.
Finally, and probably most importantly, they say that it won't work. Indeed, it is hard to see how it could. Firstly, no sharks caught have been great whites, although it is that endangered species that is implicated in the vast majority of attacks. So we are capturing sharks but they are not the ones that are implicated in the attacks. We do recognise that there are seasonal factors there, but we believe this will continue to be the pattern.
If you look at the shark culling that was carried out in Hawaii between 1959 and 1976, over 4,500 sharks were killed and yet there was no significant decrease in the number of shark bites recorded. They looked at culling practices in New South Wales over the last 60 years, and even with the use of shark nets they found that 23 of the 139 attacks have occurred on netted beaches. Indeed, there is concern that baiting may even be creating a more dangerous environment. Small sharks are being left on hooks overnight, bleeding and potentially being attacked by other sharks. Even the Premier admits that at least one shark was eaten by other sharks while on a hook. Conservation groups claim that they have video evidence that this attraction of sharks—sharks eating the sharks on the hooks—is in fact occurring more frequently.
So what should we do? We need to maintain our commitment to aerial patrols. They are expensive but they do work. We need genuine and sophisticated research so that we know the habits of sharks. We need to educate the public about what they can do to reduce their risk. And we need to invest heavily in shark-deterrent capability, be it personal devices or the devices used by those in the fisheries industry, particularly abalone divers. So I would urge the Premier and the federal Minister for the Environment over the next few months to sponsor a state debate and a dialogue with the community so that we can establish some common ground on the way forward.
I rise this evening to speak about rare diseases and to give my support to efforts towards the development of a national plan for rare diseases. Just over two weeks ago, on 28 February, people around the world recognised those with a rare disease and the impact on their families and carers and the medical staff who support, treat and care for them.
Now in its seventh year, Rare Disease Day aims to increase awareness of and improve care for people living with a rare disease. I was really fortunate to attend a Rare Disease Day in my electorate at the Wesley Hospital in Auchenflower, and I want to thank all those at the Wesley Hospital and the many from my electorate who attended. It was a very informative day and there was a very expert group of medical speakers as well.
I listened to Krissy Roebig and Peter and David Bissell talk of their experiences with rare diseases. Krissy, as a parent, has never given up on improving the lives of her children. Peter and David, who are adults, have not let their rare disease prevent them from living life to the full.
I was reminded that there is so much that is not yet known about rare diseases. Many people, and I count myself in this list, assume that a rare disease is likely to be something we have never heard about before—something strange and, most likely, very difficult to pronounce. But the truth is that it can be something we are quite familiar with. Cystic fibrosis is a condition that many have heard of before, but most people, when you ask them, would not think that that is a rare disease. But it is. So is Huntington's disease, for that matter, or mitochondrial disease, or muscular dystrophy, or even polycystic ovary syndrome. These are all rare diseases, and they are called that because these life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases are statistically rare. According to the International Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs, that means that rare diseases are those:
… with an estimated prevalence of 5 in 10,000 or of similarly low prevalence and high level of complexity that special combined efforts are needed to address the disorder or condition.
Put very simply in layman's terms, it means that, while the chances of one individual being the only person in the world to have a particular disease are low, it is not that uncommon for an individual to have a rare disease. In Australia it is estimated that 10 per cent of the population, which is around two million people, are affected by a rare disease. Few Australians would know that, with approximately one in 12 Australians being affected, they may have been closer to knowing someone with a rare disease than they originally thought.
Of particular concern is that close to 80 per cent of rare diseases affect children and, sadly, approximately 30 per cent of patients are dying before their fifth birthday. These are really harrowing statistics, made even more poignant when you hear the personal stories of the parents of children with a rare disease. As I listened the other day to Krissy Roebig in Brisbane talk about the day that she and her husband were told that one of her children was diagnosed with a rare disease and how it would affect their lives and the changes that they would have to make to their family's life, I felt my eyes start to well up, and most of the people in that room had their eyes well up with their personal story.
But it was not the tragedy of the story that affected me the most; it was how this incredible family just refused to give up. It was the sheer volume of love and determination to find a better life or even a cure first for one and later for two of their children. Krissy's story was one of harnessing that support and encouragement of friends and not accepting the prognosis. There was little she could do, but she could make a difference to the lives of her children and also to other sufferers of rare diseases. I thank her for her efforts in making sure that no other parent ever has to suffer alone. Her efforts on that are to be applauded.
It also highlighted the need to better understand not only diseases themselves but also the reason they are called rare diseases and what this might actually mean. For many who are told that they or a loved one has a rare disease, the first step is, 'What is the disease?' Even at this point, there are hurdles. A report into rare diseases by a working group of the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit in 2004 found that, while most rare diseases begin in childhood, one of the key problems is obtaining a definitive prognosis. This can be difficult, costly and time consuming. The report found that health professionals are often the ones that lack the health information and the resources. It was also found that families of sufferers experienced financial and psychological stress. Then, before we have even got it, there is the matter of the treatment. Some diseases require new, expensive treatments but, sadly, many rare diseases have no treatment at all. Despite the relatively low prevalence of rare diseases in the population, medical professionals will tell us that rare diseases have a high level of complexity. This means that special efforts and health resources are needed to treat patients and address the condition or the disorder. As the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium found, rare diseases do not attract much interest from pharmaceutical companies because the potential market is way too small. It is an age-old problem about demand and supply.
But in the last few years there has been a call for a national plan to support rare and orphan diseases. That would recognise the impact of rare diseases on individuals and their families and carers as well as on health professionals and resources. It would give people living with a rare disease access to diagnosis, awareness, treatments, services, coordination of care, research and information, and it would offer a comprehensive approach to rare diseases, paving the way for improved diagnosis and treatment, and contribute to the overall development of future public health policy. I am really happy to stand here today to support the progression of such a plan. It is estimated that there are more than 8,000 rare diseases, most of which are genetic diseases. Among other categories are rare cancers, congenital malformations, autoimmune diseases as well as toxic and infectious diseases.
It is a fact that we do not know quite enough about rare diseases, and that is what is at the heart of a push for a national plan. If you visit the Orphanet Australia web site, which provides an inventory and classification of rare diseases, as well as providing other detail, including about research and patient support groups, you can start to see the scale of rare diseases and the merits of pooling information nationally. We in Australia are the newest member of the Orphanet consortium. We are only the second country outside Europe to join the Orphanet global consortium to pool information resources on rare diseases. There is quite a way to go but, as in all things, making a start is the first step to achieving a goal.
I commend my colleague from Western Australia the member for Swan, who sits opposite me, for organising the day we had in parliament recently, which was attended in great bipartisan fashion by people from both sides of politics. I thank him particularly for organising the attendance of Megan Fookes, the Executive Director of Rare Voices Australia, a not-for-profit organisation established two years ago to provide a unified voice for Australians living with a rare disease. I was so pleased to see Megan, whom I had seen just a few days earlier in Brisbane. I commend Megan and her team on their ongoing work raising awareness and understanding about what a rare disease is and, most importantly, what it means to have a loved one of the rare disease.
I thank Krissy Roebig and Peter and David Bissell, who spoke at the Brisbane event and shared their stories. I have known Peter and David for many years, as have many hundreds of children who have spent time in Brisbane hospital. When they are not talking about their diseases they are known as Peebo and Dagwood, a pair of clowns who have turned their own experiences with the rare disease cystic fibrosis—and having spent considerable time in hospital—into a reason to spread cheer to others. They do it so well. They have not let a disease prevent them from doing the things that they love and they have lived their lives to the fullest. Krissy, Peter and David's stories and those of thousands of Australians with a rare disease increase our understanding about not just that rare disease but also the impact of the disease on the lives of carers and supporters and medical staff.
I encourage all members of the House to take the time to learn more about rare diseases and join with two million rare disease sufferers in Australia to improve outcomes for these sufferers, their families, their friends and the medical staff in their treatment and care.
At the outset I thank Mrs Sandra Barrett of Minto for raising with me an issue that I was totally unaware of previously but which, if trends in this country continue, will be of increasing importance. I refer to the question of Medicare coverage on Australian cruises. In a recent report, Deloitte Access Economics commented:
The Australian cruise sector has undergone strong growth in the last five years … against a backdrop of stagnation in the wider tourism sector …
That is obviously, crucially, to do with the Australian dollar over that period. In 2010-11, cruises contributed $830 million to the Australian economy in value adding, contrasting with $580 million in 2007-08. Passenger growth has been such that passenger days at port in Australia in 2005 were 400,000 and by 2009 they were 1.1 million. It is estimated that between 2013-14 and 2019-20 there will be less pronounced growth but it will still be at seven per cent. What that is saying is that large numbers of Australians are getting on cruise boats every week.
Sandra Barrett's experience is one that people should be aware of and something that we should perhaps find some solution to. The smartraveller.gov.au web site advises that cruise passengers should take out travel insurance. It goes on to say:
Medicare benefits are only payable to cruise passengers if you're travelling between two Australian ports. They are not payable for journeys between an Australian port and a foreign port or between two foreign ports.
That is as we would expect it. The problem arises that many of the medical staff of these cruise ships do not have accredited Medicare provider numbers, so we have a situation where Sandra was up for $1,700. Perhaps if she had been going on a longer cruise than Sydney to Melbourne she would have given greater emphasis to having travel insurance, but I would not think it unusual that Australians travelling to the Melbourne Cup or some cricket event would decide not to take out travel insurance for such a short journey in Australian waters.
The minister has responded fairly swiftly, and he has given me the sort of reply that would come from either side of politics in government:
Professional services provided on a domestic journey by a Medicare eligible provider are therefore eligible for Medicare benefits. However, health care arrangements on cruise ships are a matter for the ship's operator, and they are under no obligation to employ Medicare eligible medical practitioners.
As a general proposition, that might be understandable, but I would think that governments should be more proactive in encouraging them, particularly those that are predominantly on the Australian market, in a situation where the government's own site does not in any way imply that you may not be covered. It does not go into an explanation that Medicare will only cover you if the medical staff of the boat have Australian provider numbers.
The numbers involved in this are burgeoning. I got off a train last week outside my electoral office and there were a number of people there who had just been on a cruise. Those numbers are very much growing, and more and more Australians are being affected. There should be a bit more interest in this by the Department of Health and they should try to encourage these operations to get Australian provider numbers or make sure the Australian public understand the situation. When you talk about the need for travel insurance, you should be a bit more definitive about it so that people are aware of these issues.
I want to turn to another subject. One of the traditional complaints and excuses by the Australian public about our perennial defeats by New Zealand rugby union teams is the haka. It supposedly puts off the Australians and that is the only reason why they lose games every now and again! In my electorate there is a significant New Zealand population and, more specifically, a Maori population. I want to congratulate the Australian Maori National Committee of Performing Arts for an event held over the weekend in Liverpool, at the Whitlam centre. It is quite a victory for Australian based haka groups to be given the right to compete in the New Zealand championships. Nine teams from three states—Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales—competed last week for the right to go to New Zealand to represent Australia at that event in Christchurch. It is pleasing that that culture is maintained here and that people can get groups together—nine teams, significant numbers of people—participating and supporting it. I noticed the attendance of the New Zealand high commissioner, and that was indicative of the work being done by this group to make sure that the rights of Australian Maoris were driven home at this event. The Liverpool based Samoan consul general was also in attendance.
Finally I want to briefly cover the defunding of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, described by former MP Mal Washer as a devastating blow. Governments have to make decisions. There are budgetary stipulations, requirements et cetera. But, while there may be things that we can in this country afford to dismiss and basically put up against the wall, this would be one body that I would have thought should have gained greater consideration. I have had constituents raise this with me quite genuinely—people who work in this sector. This is a group that has worked on minimisation of alcohol and other addictions. It has done professional development work. It has a significant information-sharing role and a library. There have been a variety of excuses as to why it was defunded, including its accountability and the claim that there are multiple alternative sources of information. All of these have been trotted up. The bottom line, I would hope, is that it is a budgetary decision rather than a bowing to corporate interest in the alcohol and drug sector. It also is an organisation that has a proud history and significant involvement in the national campaign against drugs—later known as the National Drug Strategy. It was there, it was active, it was crucial in making sure it would operate.
On 3 March this year the National Drug Sector Information Service, which included operations such as the National Inhalants Information Service, ceased to exist; they were abolished. As I said, the library and the collection of materials that they had will basically remain unattended for the future. I think this is a serious decision by the government. Forty-seven years of work—pioneering, worthwhile—in an area that affects many people of all ages, all types, all incomes and all ethnicities is basically condemned due to lack of support. It will have very serious long-term outcomes. I would hope that the government, if it gains a situation where it feels its budgetary situation is better, makes sure that bodies such as this are funded, that things like this do not fall by the wayside and that people are assisted in this crucial sector.
Belmont city, or some may say the City of Belmont, is in my electorate of Swan. It is a city with lots of wonderful people who have lived there for a long, long time, and tonight I want to talk to them about a Trojan Horse in Belmont. But first I would like to raise why I have decided to do this speech.
On Friday I received a letter from the City of Belmont requesting an answer to a local and state issue that emanated from an amendment to a motion. The amendment was moved by Councillor Gardner. If Councillor Gardner had wanted to ask me a question—and it would not surprise me if it had been prompted by his father-in-law—he could have rung me, he could have rung my office or he even could have asked me at last Friday's citizenship ceremony, which we both attended. He did none of the above, but instead tried to use the council, through a motion, in a petty attempt to try to wedge me.
Anyway, let me get back to the Trojan Horse, known as the Belmont Community Group. While I am prompted by Councillor Gardner's motion to do this speech, I also think the City of Belmont's residents should know what is happening in their city and who is behind any organisations pretending to be something other than what they really are. On the weekend of 22 and 23 February there was an article in the Weekend Australian, in the 'Inquirer' section, by Ean Higgins titled 'Labor ignored early warnings of Thomson grime and slime'. As I was reading the article, I had a feeling of familiarity, that I had seen something similar to what was mentioned in the article about Thomson's campaign to win the federal seat of Dobell. The article outlines how Thomson had set up 'a sham front organisation called Coastal Voice'. It was a template from the ALP-union campaign book: the setting up of a community group to win over voters without identifying it as an ALP-union front. In Thomson's case it was called Coastal Voice. In Belmont's case it is called the Belmont Community Group.
According to the article in the Weekend Australian, Thomson launched Coastal Voice in 2006 as a concerned non-partisan resident who, with three other locals, set up an independent community lobby group, which we all know now it was not. He persuaded the Central Coast Mariners to support it; they did until they found out it was a front. The group was set up with most, if not all, committee members associated with the ALP or with a union. It was in fact launched by the previous member for Swan, Kim Beazley, which is something I am sure he now regrets. And guess what Thomson did when he was asked by the local paper about this supposed sham? He denied it. He also said he had no thoughts of running for parliament—more denials from Mr Thomson. Again, we now know this to be false. I am sure denial is a tactic that will also be used about this speech.
This group that Thomson started, as described in the article, just sounded too much like the recently started Belmont Community Group in my electorate. And when some residents came to me with concerns, I decided to do some investigations into this Trojan Horse. I recently received a copy of this group's first newsletter, which has a collection of articles mainly featuring people associated with the ALP. The newsletter is professionally done, and I am sure it would not have been cheap to print and deliver. The question is: who paid for it? That is the question all ratepayers of Belmont should ask. The newsletter is not authorised and does not state where it is printed, and even though the newsletter is blatantly political it fails to meet the standards for political literature.
In the 2013 state election, Cassie Rowe stood as the ALP candidate for the seat of Belmont, and for the first time in 100 years—or close to that—the seat of Belmont was lost by the ALP. It was a humiliating defeat for the ALP and the AWU supported candidate, as the following quote from the Crikey blog says:
Peter Kerr of the Australian Financial Review reported that Rowe had secured the backing of the Australian Workers Union, which had traditionally been weak in Western Australia but was looking to expand its reach. Kerr's report further spoke of a deal in which Rowe would receive Left support in exchange for the AWU supporting Simone McGurk's preselection in Fremantle.
The father of the candidate, Barry Rowe, had been an ALP minister and MLA for the seat of Essendon in Victoria for roughly 15 years before heading west and obviously has instilled his love of politics in both his daughters. Barry has a business called Frontier Capital—and I want you to remember that name, Frontier Capital. An ASIC search shows that its registered office and principal place of business is in Floreat—not in Belmont but in Floreat. It does have a post office box in Belmont, which could give it the appearance of operating from Belmont, but I have yet to see proof of that operation.
Anyway, the president of this ALP front, the Belmont Community Group, is none other than the Belmont ALP candidate, Cassie Rowe. In an article in the Southern Gazette dated 17 December 2013, Cassie was described as a 'longstanding resident of Belmont'. That was a description which stretched the truth, as no-one in Belmont had heard of her prior to her being parachuted in as the ALP candidate for the state election. Even the two Kevins, Kevin Bettridge and Kevin Watkins, wrote to the newspaper about their disappointment in a non-local ALP candidate. They are probably the most sensible letters I have seen them write. But the ever faithful Frank Lamp stoutly defended the former assistant state secretary of the Labor Party, Cassie Rowe, against those letters. Frank's reward for that was a picture on the front page of the first newsletter from that group.
When I and other people spoke to the journalist about her 'longstanding resident' description of Ms Rowe, the journalist said that she had not written that, but a subeditor of the paper had inserted it in her article without her permission, and she was embarrassed by it. Sarah Motherwell said she had had quite a few phone calls asking her about the description 'longstanding'. One resident commented that being somewhere for two minutes does not make you 'longstanding'. A week later in an article by the same journalist, she wrote that Ms Rowe, who was recommending to ratepayers and residents how to vote, did not disclose in the previous article that her husband—wait for it—was none other than Patrick Gardner, one of the council candidates, the councillor who wrote to me recently. She also failed to mention that Lauren Cayoun, another candidate, worked for Cassie's sister, Samantha Rowe, who is a state ALP MLC who has her office based in Belmont.
During the state election campaign, the two Rowe sisters set up a stall in the local shopping centre, misusing a government logo on the front of the desk, a picture of which they posted on a Facebook page and then quickly removed, but not before we managed to get a copy of that photo. We are starting to see the dots connect, the secrecy surrounding those dots and a pattern of being misleading developing. The shopping centre confirmed that they were misled.
I cannot understand why they do not all just declare that they are connected to the ALP and the unions and be proud of it. What are they hiding? Instead we see a pattern of nondisclosure very similar to that of Craig Thomson and Coastal Voice. In the newsletter, you are invited to join the community group online. As of 10 minutes ago, I have tried repeatedly to bring up that website, but alas it is down. It is great to see that membership is free, but that still raises the question: who is paying for the newsletters? Maybe we could ask the treasurer of the group? Guess who that is. It is none other than Councillor Gardner, who, in his campaign for council, announced that he was the treasurer of this group—yes, the same Patrick Gardner who is the husband of Cassie Rowe. When I could not log on to the website, I thought I had better check who registered the domain name. I found out that Frontier Capital, which I mentioned at the start of this speech, is the registrant of this particular domain name. And who is the technical contact for that registrant? Barry Rowe. It just keeps going.
The newsletter has some interesting articles and some photos. I would like to describe some of those to you now. On the front, there is obviously the previous one I mentioned: Frank Lamp, who is a longstanding member of the ALP. He is on the front page with Cassie Rowe and the article that states that she is a longstanding resident. Inside, we have another picture from the Islamic College school graduation, with Samantha Rowe and, again, Councillor Patrick Gardner and Councillor Lauren Cayoun. Then we have another picture from the Belmont students graduation night which shows the Hon. Samantha Rowe MLC and one of the students.
Then on the back page, we have pictures of the Christmas sundowner for Samantha Rowe MLC. There are photos of—guess who—Stephen Price, who is the Branch Secretary of the AWU in Western Australia; Louise Durack, the former ALP candidate for the seat of Stirling; and Cassie Rowe herself, obviously. Then we have Michelle Roberts MLA, an ALP member in the Western Australia parliament. In the pictures there we also have Sue Pethick, a union organiser, Senator Sue Lines, one of our ALP senators in the other place, and some other people.
So, as you can see, there are consistent and continuous connections to the ALP and the unions. On that basis, I would like to say that hopefully tonight the residents of Belmont have been informed. This Belmont community group is a Labor and union family. It has been my pleasure to inform the people of Belmont of these facts today.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:26