I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Lazarus had been appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Fund Establishment.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 amends the Customs Act 1901to implement Australia's obligations under chapter 3 of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement.
Chapter 3 sets out the rules of origin criteria and related documentary requirements for determining the eligibility of goods to obtain preferential tariff entry into Australia under the agreement.
The complementary Customs Tariff Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to set out Australia's tariff commitments under the agreement.
The agreement was signed by Prime Minister the Hon. Tony Abbott MP and his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, on 8 July 2014 in Canberra, Australia. The governments of Australia and Japan have agreed to aim for the agreement to enter into force early in 2015.
The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement is a comprehensive agreement that substantially liberalises trade with Japan and creates significant new commercial opportunities for Australian businesses. Japan is Australia's second largest trading partner and the implementation of this agreement will significantly boost Australia's position in this major market, as this agreement is the most liberalising trade agreement Japan has ever concluded.
More than 97 per cent of Australia's exports to Japan will receive preferential access or enter duty-free on full implementation of the agreement. There will also be significant new market openings in services and investment.
The agreement contains simplified and trade facilitative rules of origin and related documentary requirements. Goods imported into Australia that meet the rules of origin, implemented through this bill, will be entitled to claim preferential tariff treatment in accordance with the agreement.
The amendments include relevant obligations on Australian exporters and producers who wish to export Australian goods to Japan under the agreement and obtain preferential treatment for those goods in Japan. The amendments also confer certain powers on authorised officers to examine records and ask questions of exporters or producers of goods exported to Japan in order to verify the origin of such goods.
The agreement reflects Australia's close bilateral economic relationship with Japan.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 is the second bill relating to the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement.
This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement part of the agreement by:
This bill complements the amendments contained in the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: AIR6000 Phase 2A/B new Air Combat Capability Facilities.
As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence proposes to carry out public works to support the introduction into service and operations of the new F35A, or Joint Strike Fighter, aircraft. The works will provide new and refurbished facilities at Royal Australian Air Force Bases Williamtown, Tyndal, Townsville, Darwin, Curtin, Scherger, Learmonth, Pearce and Edinburgh as well as additional explosive ordnance and flare storage facilities at Defence Establishment Myambat. The works will provide new and upgraded facilities and infrastructure essential to the operation of the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The project includes new accommodation, maintenance hangars, storage, workshop and training facilities, aircraft runway and pavement works, and explosive ordnance storage facilities. The estimated cost of the project is $1.477 billion, excluding GST. This investment will bring economic benefits for the local industry, predominantly in the regions of Newcastle, in New South Wales, and Katherine, in the Northern Territory, over the next seven years.
The committee made three recommendations to Defence in relation to the works proposed at RAAF Base Williamtown, and I am advised that Defence has accepted these recommendations. Specifically, Defence will: continue to consult with local communities and, where possible, implement measures for the mitigation of noise impacts; work with the Hunter Water Corporation to ensure water quality is not compromised; and undertake appropriate traffic studies to ensure that construction traffic is suitably managed.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in early 2015 and be completed by 2022. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, under the leadership of the member for McPherson, for once again undertaking a rigorous and timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's 14th report of the 44th Parliament, entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011; bills introduced 30 September to 2 October 2014; legislative instruments received 13 to 19 September 2014.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report provides the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' view on the compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 of the bills specified. The committee has also considered responses to the committee's comments in previous reports.
Of the 12 bills introduced in the period covered by the report, four are assessed as not raising significant human rights concerns. A similar number raised concerns requiring further correspondence with ministers. The committee has deferred its consideration of the remaining four bills.
A number of the bills considered are scheduled for debate during the sitting week. These include:
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
Importantly for the protection of traditional rights and freedoms—some would prefer the term civil liberties—this report includes our examination of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014.
As has been widely reported, this legislation proposes a range of very significant changes to national security laws in Australia, and as a consequence the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
As context to my remarks, I remind members that the committee's task is to undertake a technical and bipartisan inquiry into the human rights implications of legislation—international human rights obligations as agreed by previous governments.
Importantly the scrutiny role of the committee requires that it conduct its assessments in absence of partisan politics or consideration of the policy merits of a proposal.
Members will already be familiar with the work of other parliamentary committees—the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—and the similar conclusions drawn by them and us on a variety of proposals.
Overall, I regard the committee's approach to examining the foreign fighters bill as seeking to create a constructive dialogue around the measures contained in the bill, by highlighting particular issues of human rights concern to the parliament.
In this respect, there is scope within the human rights legislative scrutiny framework to ensure that important issues of national security are balanced against the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
The report clearly states that the committee 'notes that human rights principles and norms are not to be understood as inherently opposed to national security objectives or outcomes' and that 'international human rights law allows for the balancing of human rights considerations with responses to national security concerns'.
Critically, the committee expects proponents of legislation, who bear the onus of justifying proposed limitations on human rights, to apply this framework in the statement of compatibility required for bills.
More simply put, proposed measures can limit human rights, if they can be shown to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective.
This analytical framework is capable of ensuring that any intrusions into human rights are finely calibrated, such that our laws only limit rights as much as is necessary to achieve their goal.
On that note, the report observes that, in relation to a number of the proposed measures, the statement of compatibility does not fully explain why the measures are necessary in pursuit of a legitimate objective. In particular, it does not explain how and why existing law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers are insufficient to prevent serious threats to Australia's national security interests. In these instances, the committee is seeking further explanation from the Attorney-General.
For example, the bill would extend for 10 years a number of specific powers which are due to expire in 2015 or 2016, such as control orders and preventative detention orders. The committee's report notes that it regards there to be sufficient time before these powers expire to undertake detailed and thorough inquiries as to their efficacy and necessity.
The committee has also taken the approach of recommending amendments and constructive solutions in relation to a number of the measures in order to strengthen the human rights compatibility of the bill.
For example, the bill currently allows for the exclusion of foreign evidence that is obtained directly as a result of torture. The committee has suggested that foreign evidence obtained directly or indirectly from torture should be excluded in order to align the legislative proposal with Australia's international obligations under the convention against torture.
I would note that the committee has determined that some of the measures outlined in the bill are likely to be incompatible with human rights.
For example, the introduction of the declared area offence provision.
This provision would introduce a new offence of entering or remaining in a declared area unless it was solely for a legitimate purpose. The bill specifies a limited number of legitimate purposes. The offence is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
As noted in the report, the proposed construction of the offence would mean that a person could commit the offence without actually knowing that the area was declared, and without any intention of engaging in or supporting terrorist activity. A person accused of entering or remaining in a declared area would bear an evidential burden—that is, they would need to provide evidence that they were in a declared area solely for a legitimate purpose.
An offence provision which requires the defendant to carry an evidential burden will engage the right to be presumed innocent because a defendant's failure to discharge the burden of proof may permit their conviction despite reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
The committee has also raised concerns in relation to the right to freedom of movement as the list of defences or excuses to the proposed offence is relatively narrow.
For example, it is not a defence to visit friends, transact business, retrieve personal property, attend to personal or financial affairs or to undertake a religious pilgrimage While it is a defence to be 'making a news report', this is only the case if the person is 'working in a professional capacity as a journalist'. Accordingly, there appear to be a number of innocent reasons why a person might enter or remain in a declared zone, but that would not bring a person within the scope of the sole legitimate purpose defence.
The report therefore concludes that the declared area offence provision, as currently drafted, is likely to be incompatible with human rights.
The right to freedom of expression, also known as free speech, is a foundational principle of our democracy, and is protected by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The committee is of the view that a number of measures in the bill engage this fundamental human right or civil liberty:
(a) advocates the doing of a terrorist act or a terrorism offence; and
(b) is reckless as to whether another person will engage in that conduct as a result. The offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. The report notes the committee's concern that the offence, as drafted, may result in the criminalisation of speech and expression that does not advocate the commission of a terrorist act or terrorism offence. This is because the proposed offence would require only that a person is 'reckless' as to whether their words will cause another person to engage in terrorism (rather than the person 'intends' that this be the case).
It is not the ambition of the committee to be inconvenient to the desire and duty of governments to protect citizens from the harm of others and the deliberate evils of terrorism.
But the scrutiny role of this committee in this parliament must always be to shine a light on real and possible breaches of those fundamental rights and liberties—the right to freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to freedom of movement, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy and the rights to freedom of expression and association.
This latest report has as its motivation not a wish to embarrass government but to be a vehicle for more rigorous debate and, as a result, more concise and carefully constructed legislative proposals that simultaneously protect the community and its freedoms so easily taken for granted.
I urge fellow members to consult the report for the committee's full examination of this bill, and for the committee's comments on the other legislation and responses considered in the relevant period.
With these comments, I commend the committee's 14th report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That, in respect of the proceedings on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014, and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;
(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by non-Government Members, and (b) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;
(3) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills shall be treated as if they have been moved together with (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments, (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members, and (c) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(4) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and
(5) any variation to this arrangement being made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Before I allow the member for Watson to respond, can I say that it is so important today that this parliament debate and vote upon the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014. The reason is that deregulation and cutting red tape are a priority for this government and a priority for this nation.
Free the hyphens!
Mr Husic interjecting—
The members for Wakefield and Chifley will desist.
In the first repeal day, in March, more than 10,000 pieces of legislation and regulation were repealed and more than 50,000 pages removed from the statute books. This time round, in the second repeal day, we will be removing more than 1,000 pieces of regulation and legislation and more than 7,200 pages from the statute books.
The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand, 'Oh, this is so trivial; this is the normal job of government to correct the statute books,' and on the other hand have the shadow Assistant Treasurer go out there in print this week and accuse the government of removing vital protections for people in the financial services sector and also in the not-for-profit sector. You cannot have it both ways. We are either making substantial reforms or we are not.
The reality is that Universities Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and many other groups, like ACCI, have come out and lauded this government for taking deregulation seriously. They have lauded the $2.1 billion worth of savings that we have announced and they have lauded us for setting up deregulation units within every minister's portfolio. They have said, 'Thank you for setting up ministerial advisory committees where we bring in outside expertise and advice to help the ministers understand where the priorities are for deregulation.'
We have changed the remuneration KPIs of senior public servants to better align the performance indicators with our priorities and our commitments to capping red tape. We have set ourselves an annual net target of $1 billion a year in reducing compliance for families, individuals, small businesses and the not-for-profits of Australia. It does not help those opposite to know that we have actually got to over $2 billion and we have smashed through our $1 billion target. That is what they do not like about this. They do not like the politics of our success, rather than the substance of our reforms, because, when we passed the omnibus bill through this House in March of this year, it was successful in getting through the Senate.
The member for Goldstein would like to know, as he is a former head of the Farmers' Federation, that we changed the rules and processes around agricultural and veterinary chemicals. We also changed the rules around classification and removed the red tape there by getting our reforms through the Senate. Our changes to the Future of Financial Advice also went through the Senate. We have made a number of other reforms, where we have banked well over $1 billion, which are improving the lives of Australians.
There are a couple of consistent themes you will hear from the dozens of my colleagues today who are speaking on these bills. There are a couple of key themes. Firstly, we are making life easier for people who interact with government. We are saying that a system like myGov, which allows five million Australians to have an account and to access Medicare, Centrelink and a centralised online portal, is making their lives easier. There is myTax, which is allowing up to 1.4 million Australians to get prepopulated tax returns, because the government is already in the possession of key data, like their dividends on their shares, their interest on their bank accounts or their income. That has been prepopulated by the government. That, again, is helping them.
We are saying to the people of Australia and the builders of Australia, 'You don't have to be excluded from government contracts when we are building Defence housing in small regional and remote communities. With changes around the Federal Safety Commissioner's accreditation, you can now participate. We are saying to 32,500 small businesses who do not pay any GST that they no longer have to submit a BAS. We are saying to the 430,000 small businesses who pay their GST and submit a BAS that they do not need to go through the PAYG system. These are significant deregulation reforms.
What about our one-stop shops? The member for Watson, who was the former Minister for the Environment, would have loved to have got that reform introduced with the support of every state and territory, but the member for Flinders has done that and he has got the assessment approvals. We now hope to get the final legislation through the Senate. That is $420 million worth of deregulation. The member for Goldstein made significant changes to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic, by actually allowing the export of non-capital goods by small and medium enterprises to get the direct support of Efic rather than those businesses having to go through the expensive process of taking a bank guarantee from Efic, going to fill in forms and paying an extra margin to the banks. It is significant deregulation reforms like that that are helping our exporters, helping our employers and helping our small businesses.
I was so proud to be part of a government that released the competitiveness and industry agenda just a couple of weeks ago. Central to that agenda was an important deregulation reform which meant that systems, products and services that are approved overseas in trusted international jurisdictions can now be accepted into Australia much more readily, with only an extra layer of compliance put on when the regulators themselves can prove there is a very good reason to do so. We had the head of Cochlear, Chris Roberts, come out and say that this is making a tangible difference not just to his business but to the thousands of people suffering hearing defects who benefit from his company's products.
This deregulation agenda is the meat and potatoes of this government. It sits alongside budget repair, infrastructure and reducing the overall tax burden. Many of my colleagues in this place are going to make substantial contributions to this House. It deserves to be supported today. We look to the Labor Party to support good reform and not just support their own political interests.
Can I open by making it clear that I will be moving an amendment at the end of this speech. I say that now because it is to be seconded by the member for Chifley and I thought if I flagged it early he might still be in the chamber. If he is not, I have the member for Wakefield, but those odds usually are not good either.
Madam Speaker, if you listen to the arguments that were just offered by the member for Kooyong, effectively he has provided all the arguments as to why this gag motion should not be agreed to. In the first instance, he has said that dozens of his colleagues will be supporting him in arguments today. With 15-minute speeches, if he had only two dozen of his colleagues make speeches we would have six hours of debate, which he is about to say cannot happen—and that would presume there were no speeches at all from the other side. To claim that dozens of his colleagues are going to want to speak in support of this at the exact same moment he is moving a motion to deny them the opportunity of that shows the lack of judgement that is being applied in the motion. It is not often you get a gag motion that even the Leader of the House is too ashamed to come in and move. That does not happen very often. But on this one the member for Kooyong has managed to find shame even within the parliamentary principles that are put forward by the Leader of the House.
The member for Kooyong made another thing clear during his speech. He went through all the examples of deregulation that he thought were noteworthy. The problem was that they were not the ones that are before us today. They were not the issues before us today.
That's not true! We've got a thousand pieces—
Now he is interjecting and wanting to claim, 'Oh no; we've got all these pieces of legislation in front of us.' They are all redundant pieces of legislation. To be cleaning them out, to be getting rid of redundant legislation, is neither here nor there but it is certainly not a reason for wanting to gag debate. If you look at the grand figures for what the government is claiming they are wanting to achieve on deregulation, the Prime Minister's figure is $2.33 billion. That is what he is intending to achieve on deregulation, removal of red tape. Today we have $1.8 million in front of us—and this is meant to be a carnival, a festival, a big bonfire of red tape. If today is an indication of the pace at which the government is pursuing deregulation, there will be 1,000 such days before the Prime Minister can reach his target. It will take 1,000 days like today before the Prime Minister can reach his target. And what have they attached those savings to? They have attached them to issues like the removal of hyphens, the removal of commas. It is going to be, from this government a punctuation-led recovery. What we have from the government here is nothing more than the ultimate example of spin and style over the top of substance.
I believe that we should handle this bill in the way we handle any non-controversial and non-urgent legislation, and that is that we refer it to the Federation Chamber. That is what we do when something is neither here nor there. That is what we do when we are dealing with something controversial. To think that we are going to have fanfare and the dedication of an entire day in parliament to changes in punctuation, to abolishing redundant legislation! That that is worthy of people coming from around the nation, in the spotlight of the media, and saying, 'This is what the parliament's all about,' shows how little the government has to offer. With that in mind, to the motion that has been moved I move:
That all words after "occurring" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the bills being referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration, then being returned to the House no sooner than 24 November 2014."
The reason for that amendment is to keep it within the framework of a debate management motion, to keep it within the framework that the government does not want this to be able to drag on forever—but also to provide the opportunity to test whether or not there are in fact dozens of members on the other side willing to support the member for Kooyong, because I reckon there probably are not. I reckon if anyone is wanting to cut this debate short—
Put your money where your hyphen is!
We just had from the member for Chifley: 'Put your money where your hyphen is'! The attempts here from the member for Kooyong are flawed by his own arguments. If he wants to talk about any of the issues that are substantial and decent debates to have, that involve significant savings to business, then by all means have that debate, but that is not what is in front of us. If he believes there are dozens of members from his own side who want to rush to support him, well, let them speak. We would love to hear their passion on punctuation! We would love to hear how hard they want to argue that what is happening today matters.
We would love to also hear the debate management motion that says there are going to be 1,000 sitting days scheduled for the rest of the term—given there are not 1,000 days left in the rest of term—for the Prime Minister to be able to meet the target.
What we have before us today is the ordinary business of getting rid of redundant legislation and bringing some other issues up to date. I have moved the amendment that I handed to the clerks. The debate should be allowed to run in the ordinary course that we give to non-controversial legislation.
Is the amendment seconded?
It gives me great pleasure to second this amendment, because how much of the nation's fortunes has rested on a hyphen; how much has rested on the removal of a comma? We need to be able to debate this properly. It should be referred to the Federation Chamber. To paraphrase the Manager of Opposition Business: debate it and they will come. Let us see, Member for Kooyong and Parliamentary Secretary, this phalanx of red-tape slashers that you believe will be there ready to debate alongside you. Let us give them the opportunity. Let us give them the opportunity in the Federation Chamber to outline how this spring cleaning with a cotton bud is going to liberate the Australian economy and change the way we operate in this nation.
You claim, Member for Kooyong, that there is a headline target of $2.3 billion. As the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated, the legislation before us is only putting forward $1.8 million of savings that we can identify. Headline targets are great to reach. I would love, at the age of 45, to be an NBA draft pick. That is my headline target. It does not mean I am going to reach it. I can always claim a target and try and claim kudos off that target. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of the stuff you are putting forward does not stack up in the legislation that is being put forward.
You want to talk about compliance costs, and we want to be able to debate it. You want to gag the debate. You want to claim the credit and not allow for the accountability. You want to be able to go out and spruik that you are making all these savings, but you do not want us to be able to test it. You do not want us to be able to go through. As the Manager of Opposition Business has rightly said, put it up in the Federation Chamber. Let us debate it. Let us also work out, because you are so big on reducing the costs of compliance, why it is, for instance, that you are now loading up on the 6,300 petrol stations around the country $800 worth of compliance costs in the changes that you have brought forward on fuel indexation. The party that says that it is about less red tape and lower taxes uses Senate arcana and red tape to increase taxes and will not allow for debate on this.
What we are clearly saying is that we welcome the opportunity to test these claims that have been extended by the Manager of Opposition Business in the amendment he has moved. Quite often what happens here is that it is all hype and less detail and less tangible results. We have seen, for instance, claims that red-tape reduction would deliver benefit and then it does not actually follow through. Where they have cut red tape, we have had to come back and clean it up. The government claimed, for instance, that they would cut red tape, and they cut out the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, only to have to come back, embarrassingly, and fix it up. The red tape that was cut had to be fixed with sticky tape in haste to try to clean up what they had done.
We had, for instance, the argy-bargy over FoFA. They came up with their deal on FoFA and they claimed they were cutting red tape, but they were cutting protections to consumers—and they were happy to see them burnt and lose millions, as we have seen in those terrible cases. With this red-tape cutting that they did, they put this terrible deal on FoFA, only now to see the industry clamouring back and saying, 'We actually need to do more.' They are doing a mea culpa and recognising that they need to strengthen protection.
Again, this is a headline chasing for detail. The detail is never there. But let us test it. Let us give them the chance to debate this. Let us give them the chance to see whether or not these savings are fair dinkum. It is for these reasons that I support the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to ensure that this is debated in the Federation Chamber.
The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
(In division) Madam Speaker, is it in order for members of parliament to bring cups of coffee into the chamber? I am referring to the member for Corangamite, in the front row.
No, it is not. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. It is not permitted to bring food or drinks into the chamber. Only water, which is provided, is permitted.
We should cut that red tape!
I think that is one piece of red tape we will keep. The ramifications would be just awful!
Honourable members interjecting—
I think the banter is amusing, but I would remind members that, of course, during a division privilege does not apply.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Pursuant to the resolution agreed to earlier, the question is that these bills be now read a second time.
What we just saw was extraordinary. We had government members en masse voting to take themselves off the speaking list. That is what they all just did. We had about eight people from the opposition on the speaking list so it was all going to happen within the time allotted anyway and we would have voted earlier. The only thing that happened with the gag motion was that government members made sure that they did not have to speak. Government members made sure that they were not forced into the humiliating position of having to defend all the hype that the member for Kooyong has attached to today, because today will be as big a fizzer as the last repeal day was.
We have today, for a full day of parliamentary sittings, a grand total of $1.8 million of savings. That is what they are here boasting about in the same week they have added $5.1 million worth of compliance costs onto motorists throughout Australia. More than double additional compliance costs have been put in place in the same week of their big repeal day that delivers only $1.8 million. And you really have to ask some questions about the $1.8 million.
The role of one of the bills we have in front of us is to change punctuation. Its role is to remove hyphens, semicolons and commas and to return commas to other places. It will correct a spelling error that was made in 1995 that the Howard government had not picked up on and we did not pick up on. The member for Kooyong has found it so we need to set aside a day to be able to deal with the additional costs associated with this!
We are dealing with a number of bills today. The first one is the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. This one amends or repeals legislation in the Agriculture, Communications, Environment, Immigration and Border Protection, Industry, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Social Services, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs portfolios. The majority of the measures in this bill are not contentious and in fact the majority of them have zero deregulatory savings attached to them. There is nothing in the majority of the measures to suggest that there is some great burden of regulation that is going to be lifted from small business as a result of their implementation.
Let me give you some examples of what we are getting rid of with the omnibus repeal day bill. We are getting rid of the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which was established by law in 1991 and has never met.
So why keep it?
We had from the member for Kooyong, 'So why keep it?' We are relaxed about getting rid of it but it is not worthy of the fanfare. It is not worthy of setting aside a day in parliament to say: 'There is something no-one has noticed since 1991. Let us all look at it now and make the member for Kooyong seem incredibly important, because the entire fishing industry will no longer be weighed down by a body that they did not know existed and had not met.'
This bill is amending acts in the Agriculture portfolio to reflect the fact that programs and payments described in those acts are no longer operating or being paid. So no-one is getting the money and the program is not operating any more. By all means get rid of it, but this is like asking for congratulations for being able to queue to get a cup of coffee. It is like being asked to be praised for doing the ordinary work of government. What we have today on these issues is nothing more than the ordinary work of government.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority will now be able to publish certain notices in a variety of methods, including on its website, instead of just the Commonwealth Gazette. Fine. That is an ordinary part of the ordinary business of government.
There is the repeal of an act in the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio that relates to particular tariff decisions made between 1996 and 1999 that are no longer relevant and the repeal of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979 that amended the Patents Act 1952. The amending act was spent once the amendments passed into law. So in 1979 it had its impact and the amendments took place so you do not need it any more. But that is not worthy of fanfare or an entire day in the parliament to say, 'Great, we are now doing this.'
I just do not know why on earth we are not debating this in the Federation Chamber, but I do know that every time the government comes forward now saying something is not controversial and asking, 'Will you please send it to the Federation Chamber,' we will have today to compare it with when we make the decision as to what is controversial and what is not. The government has set a very strange standard here in deciding what the view of the House is on what is controversial and should be sent to the Federation Chamber. Issues only go to the Federation Chamber by mutual agreement. The government have set a very unusual standard of what the threshold is for what is considered controversial.
It is repealing the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005, which has already been superseded, repealing the Home and Community Care Act 1985, which was made redundant when the review agreements were deemed national partnership agreements in 2009, and removing social security payments by amending several acts to reflect the fact that no-one has been able to qualify for them since 2000. It is repealing two acts in the Treasury portfolio relating to the termination payments tax. The last termination payment subject to the tax occurred before 1 July 2005. Here is something that is going to be a big relief to small business—repealing the Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970, which had approved a Commonwealth guarantee on a loan made to Papua New Guinea which has been fully repaid anyway.
With all of these measures there are no deregulatory savings attached. The government want to talk about how much burden we are taking off small business and they give you the total number of acts they are repealing. Overwhelming all the measures I have just referred to are just tiding up, as government does from time to time and as we did. In fact, there are only five measures in this bill that have any deregulatory savings attached to them, worth a total of $1.3 million. These measures are: abolishing the Product Stewardship Advisory Group; amendments to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, which, among other things, removes the requirement of importers, producers and suppliers of fuel to provide an annual report to environment, saving $30,000; amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, saving $130,000; simplifying key personnel notification requirements for approved aged care providers, saving $1,160,000; and assisting research and analysis using protected information, saving $5,000.
They are all savings worth having but, make no mistake, the decision of the government that they would dedicate a full day of the House of Representatives debating it means we will spend more money by the parliament sitting than we will be saving. It means the net cost to the budget is a negative because they were not willing to deal with this in the way that we would normally deal with noncontroversial run-of-the-mill legislation.
We do not take issue with the majority of measures contained in the bill. There are some advisory groups within the environment portfolio in particular where there will be a Senate legislation committee inquiry. We just want to confirm that those advisory groups are no longer playing a relevant role, so we will check that. But, other than that, we are completely relaxed about what is in front of us. We will vote for it when the vote comes up later today and we will reserve our right on a couple of those committees while the Senate inquiry determines whether or not a couple of those advisory bodies were in fact playing a relevant role. These include the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and measures in the hazardous waste act. Understandably, we are taking a cautious approach to ensure that the government's claim that these groups are no longer relevant is in fact valid.
We are committed to an organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation. We are not interested in doing it in a way where the Commonwealth comes out with a net negative on savings that were only being ascribed to the Commonwealth anyway. So for some of these groups, the only savings are not to small business but to the Commonwealth and the cost to the Commonwealth, by insisting we have to have the debate in this chamber, is more than what will be saved. This is reminiscent of a government that as soon as they came to office, having spoken about debt and deficit, decided they would double the deficit and make debt unlimited. In the same way, they came in saying that they wanted to get rid of red tape because red tape costs money and in one day they spend more than they will save. In the same week, they more than doubled the total savings that are allegedly going to come to small business by adding a new compliance burden to every petrol station in the country—$800 per petrol station in Australia on the government's own figures.
The second of the bills is the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014. It repeals 656 acts from the period 1970 to 1979 that are of no consequence at all. They have decided to do this in a staged way. So on repeal day No. 1, we dealt with everything up to 1969 and now we appear to be going a decade at a time so we can work through each decade as we get closer to the next election. In doing so, we will continue to waste entire days of parliamentary sitting time when there are real issues to debate, when there are issues that are genuinely contentious because the government decided they needed to waste a day in here when a noncontroversial debate can very easily happen in the Federation Chamber and none of this is time critical. If it went through a few weeks later, it would make no difference to anything other than their media strategy.
The bill for the amending acts is filled with the repeal of amending legislation. When you have got a principal bill, an amendment bill comes in to change the bill. The moment the bill is proclaimed and the original bill itself has been amended, the amending bill ceases to be relevant. So all they are doing here is just getting rid all at once of bills that technically remain on the statute books that have done their job. You could do a global search on every piece of legislation containing the word 'amending' and get rid of them all at once. But they have decided to make it look like they are going through this methodically. Every amending bill, once proclaimed, has had its impact. There is no reason to do these a decade at a time. This is so the member for Kooyong can claim to have a three-year program.
I must say, I very rarely read political memoirs from anyone on either side of politics. But if the member for Kooyong brings out a book on his time as parliamentary secretary, I am not going near it. There is no way in the world I am going to read a chapter on redundant legislation followed by a chapter on commerce and finish off with the grand chapter on hyphens for his crowning achievements on deregulation.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
He is referring now to a global figure that he wants to point to, none of which is ever relevant to any of the repeal days that we are allegedly meant to focus on. The Navigation Act 1970 amended the Navigation Act 1968. The amending act became redundant once the amendments passed into law. So, okay, we are going to repeal it. It will make no difference to anyone—other than it may form an additional page in a chapter of the memoirs of the member for Kooyong. The Book Bounty Act 1970 amended the Book Bounty Act 1969. Book bounties themselves were repealed in 1990. So with the principal legislation being amended, gone, the amending act technically remains on the statute books. Now we are going to dedicate a day to getting rid of something like that as well. The Home Savings Grant Act 1975 which, amended the Home Savings Grant Act 1964, itself was repealed in 2006.
So with the substantial acts being repealed, obviously the amending acts are no longer relevant. If you want to clean them up, by all means clean them up. But why on earth is this meant to be an important day in the history of the Federation for a bonfire of regulation for amending acts that have not been relevant for years and, in fact, ceased to be relevant within moments of them being proclaimed decades ago?
The Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Act 1979 amended the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. Having been a minister for agriculture, I looked at this and thought, 'Well, why was I never briefed on this when I was minister for agriculture?' The answer, of course, is the 1965 legislation, which provided for the grant of financial assistance to the states for assistance to the poultry industry, was itself repealed in 1996. It has been gone since 1996, and we are meant to be excited here that we are cleaning up the records, getting rid of red tape for an amending bill when the principal legislation has already gone. The explanatory memorandum on the amending acts says it all:
None of the corrections makes any change to the substance of the law.
Notwithstanding that, the bill has been calculated to generate $100,000 in deregulatory savings. Exactly how you reconcile those concepts and exactly how you have none of these changes making any difference to the substance of the law, but it saves $100,000, is impressive accounting. I look forward to the member for Kooyong addressing this in his later remarks. Thanks to the vote gagging his own members, they will not get to speak, but he will still get a chance to come back into the House later today to let us know how, when none of the changes make any difference to the substance of the law, you can save $100,000 by doing it. Maybe he can factor that against the cost of parliament sitting today, given that this is the only issue we are dedicating ourselves to.
The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014, otherwise known as the punctuation-led recovery bill, fixes up incorrect cross-references, punctuation errors and spelling errors and places words in their correct alphabetical order—all reasonable things to do at some point in time but hardly worthy of saying, 'We're going to dedicate a day in parliament to this.' What other issue do we dedicate a day in parliament to? We do not dedicate a full day in parliament to talking about what the government wants to do to the pension. We do not have a day in parliament dedicated to which side of politics is committed to the future of Medicare. But we do have a day for getting rid of legislation which makes no difference to the substance of the law and which corrects alphabetical order and punctuation! In terms of the priorities of this government, today can only be described as madness.
There are deregulatory issues to be dealt with, but they are not in front of us today. The only thing that is in front of us today that is significant in terms of deregulation is rhetoric and a media release. For example, the Statute Law Revision Bill changes the expression 'servant' to 'employee'. I am glad that change is being made. It may or may not be changed back during later industrial relations ideas that might come from those opposite, but it happens over 49 pieces of legislation and is, obviously, not an unreasonable change—but, once again, it is part of the ordinary housekeeping of government.
The bill changes gender-specific language to gender-neutral language in seven locations in the Acts Interpretation Act and 87 locations in the Defence Act. This is something that should happen, and I am glad it is happening, but it is certainly not making a difference to small business compliance. I do not know where they get that rhetoric from. It also inserts a new dictionary into the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Again, the explanatory memorandum in this bill says it all:
None of the corrections make any change to the substance of the law.
Notwithstanding that you have that statement, 'None of the corrections make any change to the substance of the law,' the bill has been calculated to generate—wait for it!—$420,000 worth of savings. So none of the corrections makes any difference to the substance of the law but—bingo!—you save $420,000 on the way through. It is true! Getting better cross-referencing in legislation is the right thing to do, but how changing semicolons to full stops, capitalising 82 words, bolding and italicising six phrases or removing erroneous commas contribute to $420,000 in deregulatory savings is a mystery to me—an absolute mystery to me! And I gather, from the text messages currently being furiously sent by the member for Kooyong, that it was a mystery to him until this moment as well.
Our record has been about deregulation without the fanfare. We repealed 16,794 acts and legislative instruments when in government. It is part of the ordinary routine functions of government. Examples of the types of repeal of redundant acts that we undertook were: the repeal of the Treaty of Peace (Germany) Act 1919—the one for implementing the Treaty of Versailles—which was still around when we came to office. It was not a disaster that the Howard government or the Fraser government or anyone had not got rid of it, and we never tried to have a grandstanding day. It was silly that it was still on the books, so, as it came to our attention, we got rid of it.
Similarly, in 2012 we repealed the Administrative Arrangements Act 1987, as part of modifications and amendments it had made had already taken effect and there were no instruments or regulations in force under the provisions of that act. So we got rid of it. There was the repeal of the States Grants (Beef Industry) Act 1975. That act had provided for financial assistance to be payable to a state in relation to beef producers. It was redundant. No financial assistance had been paid since 1977. It was redundant and it was repealed in 2011. We also did a routine clean-up of the statute books, in the statute law revision acts of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the statute stocktake appropriation acts of 2012 and 2013 and the Statute Stocktake Act 2011—without the fuss or fanfare.
But then there was the greater deregulation agenda—the deregulation agenda that mattered—which was the Seamless National Economy. That was an agenda aimed at reducing costs for business in complying with unnecessary and inconsistent regulation. That was about dealing with red tape that affects people, not red tape that you have to search dusty old books in the library to try to find, because it is not actually affecting anybody.
Completion of only 17 of the Seamless National Economy reforms was estimated by the Productivity Commission to reduce business costs by $4 billion a year—$4 billion a year! That is roughly double what the government are claiming they are going to be able to achieve. And I have to say that, in terms of their numbers, if they are claiming dollar values for punctuation, I think the numbers they are pointing to need to be viewed with a high degree of suspicion.
The Productivity Commission also estimated that full implementation of the Seamless National Economy reforms would increase productivity through increased gross domestic product by $6 billion a year. Those figures are in stark contrast to the $1.8 million that we are debating today. What we are dealing with today is the ordinary work of government.
I said after the prime ministerial statement last week that I hoped the next repeal day would be better than the last. The last was pretty bad, but it takes a very special parliamentary secretary to say, 'That level of humiliation wasn't enough,' and that he can go one step further! And today the member for Kooyong has delivered. Today the member for Kooyong has made the last repeal day look constructive!
I got stuck into the last one at the time, but it at least did better than $1.8 million—it at least did better than that. Make no mistake; some of what they called 'deregulatory reform' last time round was removing essential protections and having changes that actually hurt people. Nothing was clearer than when they referred to getting rid of red tape, but what it meant was to in future cut the wages of Commonwealth cleaners. That was part of what happened last time.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
While the dollar figures where higher, the reality was that they dressed up as deregulation what actually amounted to cutting the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers, including the very workers who clean the offices for the people who did it to them.
I want to remind the House of what happened, because when these bills got to the Senate we made it clear that if our amendment was carried we would insist on it. The government ultimately accepted the amendment and we let the bills through in good faith, only to find that within 24 hours they had found another method to still cut the wages of Commonwealth cleaners. If this government want to talk about the total savings, they need to be honest about the irrelevance of most of the measures that we talk about and the real harm that they have done against some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. There is nothing this parliament should be proud of when the last repeal day meant future wage cuts for the people who serve all of us, and every department, in some of the lowest-paid jobs.
To hear the interjections that have happened during this part of my speech from the parliamentary secretary, saying, 'Oh, it is all deals with unions', I say that the members of those unions are paid a lot less than us. The members of those unions are serving all of our offices and all of the public service and are doing a hard-day's work or hard middle-of-the-night's work. For their pay cut to be part of the fanfare of so-called 'getting rid of red tape' shows a contempt for those individuals in a way that I had hoped this parliament would never show, no matter who was in office. It is one thing for those opposite to say that they do not agree with those rules and that they want a tender process that allows the lowest bidder, whether or not they are keeping to the guidelines, but the audacity of claiming that cleaners getting better wages was an example of red tape—no, it was not red tape; it was their livelihood. It was not red tape in some small business burden. It was how much money the people who clean our offices had to take home.
The policy that the government adopted was bad enough, but to dress it up with the rhetoric of red tape—and I use the term carefully in this place—was offensive. It was just out and out offensive to claim that better wages for low-paid cleaners was an issue of red tape. If the government wants to pursue lower wages for people, they should have the courage and the guts to do it head-on. But do not have a situation where you dress it up as part of a red tape repeal, reach an agreement with the opposition and then find a side way of doing it anyway within 24 hours. The government treated people with contempt, they then did a deal that gave people hope and then, within 24 hours, they trashed that hope again—and in the rhetoric after said, 'Oh, but everyone will still be paid the same amount at the moment'. Well, they will not be after the next tender, and their wages will be cut because of a deliberate act by this government that was dressed up within the rhetoric of the red tape repeal because the government did not have the courage to deal with it head-on. Decent wages for cleaners should not be viewed as red tape. It should never have happened. The behaviour of the government on the last repeal day was appalling. It is something that will not only affect the view of people in the cleaning industry towards this government; it is also something that will be attached to the character of this government for a very long time to come.
I have gone fairly broadly across the issues relating to red tape repeal. I have done so largely because the rhetoric surrounding this bill goes a long way beyond the actual contents of this bill. Obviously we will be voting for the second reading, but I move a second reading amendment:
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 notes that:
(1) repealing spent and redundant acts and regulations is part of the ordinary, routine function of any government. The former Labor Government repealed 16,794 acts and regulations during its time in office;
(2) the former Labor Government had a strong record of deregulation reform which significantly improved the competitiveness and productivity of the Australian economy. In particular, the former Labor Government through its Seamless National Economy reforms was delivering significant cost savings to businesses – just 17 of these reforms were estimated to lower business costs by $4 billion per year with the full reforms to increase Australia's productivity and deliver a $6 billion boost to GDP per year;
(3) the three bills being debated together provide claimed deregulatory savings of $1,855,000, or just 0.1 per cent of the figure claimed by the Government, with a vast majority of the changes in this bill having no impact in terms of costs or regulatory burden on businesses, individuals and the community sector in Australia; and
(4) the commitment to deregulation should not be used as a cover for threatening fairness, workplace safety, or the protections of our environment."
The principle of deregulation and getting rid of red tape is one that we should be able to have a mature debate about. Unfortunately, the significant issues in red tape are not before the parliament today. And just watch for the people who have tuned into the radio or today or are watching the telecast because they know that this is the member for Kooyong's big day and the parliamentary ratings will quadruple. The people who are paying attention should listen to the arguments that are put up by the remaining speakers from the government. There are not many of them because most of them voted to get them themselves off the list before the debate commenced. But listen to the arguments and you can bet one thing: their speeches will not be about the bill before the House. Their speeches will be about other issues, because what is in front of the House today is almost entirely inconsequential.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved an amendment to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Is it any wonder people are cynical? Is it any wonder—
No.
Thank you to the honourable member opposite. We have just spent an hour and a half talking about where this debate should happen. It is just mind blowing.
I follow the member for Watson. He and I attended the same school. He was a year ahead of me. Our paths parted at that point. The member for Watson went to study at university. I am sure he got involved in student politics and unions. He went to the state parliament of New South Wales and then ended up here. I, through university, worked in my family's business, the third generation of my family to do so. Upon completing that degree, I started work full time and had 23 years working for my father. The Prime Minister last night said something that really captured my heart in a speech he gave to the Business Council of Australia. He challenged the business community to not sit in the grandstand, to not stay in the armchair but to engage in the debate.
There has been a lot said this week about mature and sensible debate. I have had 14 months here, and I am sad to say that I think that that is a political oxymoron. The Prime Minister this week has raised issues of our Federation—and I will talk about this later. We stand at a crossroads as a country. When I was sitting in my family's business, life made sense, and what the Prime Minister said last night encapsulates my motivation to be here. Unlike the member for Watson and all those opposite, sitting on this side of the House we have doctors, lawyers, farmers, vets, teachers—people who were in the front lines before they came here, people who have grappled with all that red tape.
I rise to talk against the amendment and to support the original bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill. I would like to thank the Prime Minister, first and foremost, for having the foresight to take this into his portfolio and to put in charge my good friend the member for Kooyong. By running this out of the Prime Minister's own portfolio, he dictated to our side how serious he was about attacking this problem, this most burdensome of problems, that chokes business at every turn. The member for Kooyong did me the great honour of coming to me very early upon my election, knowing that I came from a business background, and asking would I give him a hand. And I was humbled to do so.
The member for Kooyong has worked tirelessly, not just on the first repeal day but on this second repeal day. This is not the start of things; this is the continuation of a journey that this government will not turn its back on and that we will not make fun of. I understand—having been in business and having faced not just federal government but all three levels, which I will talk about later—what this looks like and what hurdles you have to jump through as a result.
I sat here for an hour and 35 minutes and watched those opposite laugh, interject and belittle every business operator in Australia, and treat them with disdain. And I say: shame on you. We are not only delivering—
Semicolons?
There it is again, 'hyphens and commas'. It shows you the depth of the business understanding on the other side. We went to the election with the commitment of $1 billion a year. I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, because today he announces $2.1 billion in savings. Keep it up, Josh!
This government recognises the importance of cutting red tape. Every day we are looking for ways to build a strong and prosperous economy for Australia, and we are removing the burdens. A report released overnight by Deloitte Access states that government regulations cost $27 billion a year to administer—that is us—and cost businesses $67 billion a year to comply with. That is $94 billion—for those who have not done the mental arithmetic.
We have established deregulation units across government, and each minister has been instructed to undertake portfolio audits and identify areas in his or her portfolio where overregulation is a problem. And there are many of these areas. You have heard about the 16,000 the former government took away; what they omitted to tell you about was the 21,000 pieces of new legislation in their last six-year term. That is just at a federal level, and that is on top of all the pre-existing legislation that already sits in the statute books that businesses have to deal with.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech last night to the Business Council of Australia, 'Our job is to reduce regulations so that business is busy innovating rather than lobbying.'
Hear, Hear!
I say 'hear, hear,' to that too, Member for Kooyong. One particular area of note in which we are achieving savings for Australian companies is our competitiveness agenda, where we have streamlined regulatory arrangements. Earlier this year I met with a range of industry representatives from the hygiene and cosmetics industry, and heard case after case of regulatory overlap, inefficiency, pointless bureaucracy, and duplication.
And I will give you an example—I have said this in this House before—NICNAS, the TGA and APVMA cross three ministerial portfolios. Navigating products through those three portfolios was not only at the point of having ground to a halt, there was the absurd situation where a cosmetics company wanted to put some rolled oats into a pack to release for kids as a Christmas promotion. They were notified by NICNAS that it was, under their definitions, a chemical that could not be dispensed to children. Rolled oats? I don't know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—I know you have a young family—but my kids live on rolled oats, especially in winter.
This cross-ministerial portfolio—and bodies like NICNAS, TGA and APVMA, that operate off budget, that are a cost-recovery model—that is the stuff we are talking about here. That is what the member for Watson has missed completely. I notice he did not mention the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. I heard the member for Kooyong say $426 million in compliance costs—but, thinking as a businessman thinks, here is the kicker: it is estimated that we will gain $120 billion to the GDP of the economy over the next 12 years as a result.
One example the Prime Minister used last week was Cochlear. The member for Kooyong and I have spoken of this. Cochlear is very close to my family's heart for personal reasons. It is an organisation that I have spoken about prior in this place. We have changed the regulation to allow Cochlear to use the internationally recognised European Union certification—isn't that a mouthful—and avoid having to go through another certification process here in Australia. This means thousands of people will be able to access their devices up to a year earlier than they would been able to. These significant life-changing devices count, take it from me, on a personal level. To give you a local example, I met a gentleman in my electorate who closed his factory. It was too late; we could not save him, Member for Kooyong. He told me anecdotally that he has relocated his business and 22 jobs to New Zealand. Why? Because the cost of bringing chemicals into this country was prohibitive, and it was cheaper to do it in New Zealand. We change that today. Unfortunately for this gentleman and for the 22 Australians that lost their job it was too late, but it is not too late, looking forward, to ensure that this does not happen again.
While I applaud the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary for their work in this space, I cannot help but think to myself that there is so much more to do. I am not just talking about repealing unnecessary regulations and easing the burden of red tape for Australian business, as important as that is. In a week where we are challenging all in this place to have a mature and sensible debate about the future of our Federation, I believe what lies at the heart of this bill has been in fact a major failing of our Federation. I spoke in my maiden speech of the fact that with six states, two territories and a federal government, this country is like a business with nine head offices. When you add the 564 local governments across Australia, the problem becomes magnified in a way that is unsustainable and must be addressed.
At all three levels of government we are lacking people that come from a small and family business background—people who have a commercial understanding of what red tape looks like because they battle with it every day of their business life. They understand that every business in this country has two sides to their profit and loss statement, revenue and expenses, and that when revenue is soft the management of expenses becomes even more vital. Red tape has a direct impact on the expense side of every business in Australia. When you multiply the impact through each level of government it results in a dramatic increase in expenses and an equally dramatic decrease in business profits. In my mind, this is where the most massive failure of the past 113 years of our Federation lies.
We should not only have a mature and rational debate but also we must act. We must chance our mindset. Today, with my background in family business, I want to attempt to add to this debate in a way that I believe has been missing until today. What I am hoping to see is an understanding in government no matter federal, state or local that we are more than law makers and regulators—and here is the key—we are business partners. The past 113 years has focused far too heavily on the regulatory mentality without looking at the actions we take in this place through the eyes of a business partner, a partner who works to promote business and the enterprising spirit of Australians, rather than a government whose work all too often restrains Australian business.
Through our corporate tax system we take between 30c and 49c of every dollar of profit a business makes, depending on ownership structure. I cannot stress this enough: we are not simply regulators and legislators; we are stakeholders in the profitability of every business that calls Australia home.
To put the $94 billion in some context, if that is a company structure, a third is ours. The $94 billion of costs we are imposing takes $94 billion from business profitability in this country and we get between 30c and 49c in the dollar—to relate it back to the Deloitte Access Economics report released this morning. At this stage in our fiscal process we need to make sure that revenue through taxation is as high as it can be. We must change our thinking to be more than regulators. We are business partners. Rather than just legislators, we are stakeholders.
I am talking about cultural change, Member for Kooyong. In my maiden speech I challenged the ministers in this government to run their departments as you would run a business—lean and efficient. But, in saying that, I was short-sighted—as short-sighted as those that have come before me. Yes, ministers must lead from the front and promote this commercial mentality, but we must also work to encourage their departments to think like they are both regulators and stakeholders. It is the same challenge for them that it is for us. What I am trying to promote here is a complete change in culture. Ministers must continue to challenge their departments to streamline existing regulation and introduce future regulation in a way which makes the cost of complying as minimal as possible, so that profit can be as large as possible and so can our share.
We must have a mindset change across this entire parliament and look at the challenges ahead of the Australian economy with a more commercial approach. I believe it is vital for the Prime Minister to make these issues front and centre of COAG discussions. It should be a priority at the most senior levels of this country, as the more profit our businesses make the more revenue we as a government can collect through taxation and the more we can spend on the states and territories. With a coalition government, that revenue will be spent on large-scale projects that create jobs, improve productivity and promote prosperity throughout the country.
Given the fiscal position we find ourselves in as a nation, there is no doubt we need to address this revenue side of the government as well. But we must be smart about how we increase that revenue. In this respect I congratulate the Prime Minister for undertaking the white paper on reform of Australia's tax system, and I look forward to the discussions ahead in this area. It is time to have a mature and sensible discussion about the future of our Federation, but we cannot do that without pointing out the failings. When the regulatory framework ties up business, adds to their expenses and lowers their profitability to the point of pushing businesses offshore, these issues should be at the core of the debate. In his address last night, the Prime Minister said, 'We can be fans in the stands, we can be armchair critics or we can help to make it happen.' That is the call to arms. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary. That is his call to arms. He has done an outstanding job, and I am honoured to have been involved in this in some small part.
I would like to close with one thought to highlight how important this is. With a World Economic Forum global ranking of 124 out of 148 countries for 'burden of government regulation', it could not be more apparent that these measures today are urgent. They are a start and they need to continue not only for the future of our Federation but also, and much more importantly, for the future of our children.
One thing is clear: this is not much of a tea party. I know the parliamentary secretary is looking for an alternative form of engagement, but I do not recommend he looks to a role in the provision of high tea at the Windsor in that regard. What we see here is the supercharged rhetoric of the members opposite not matching the reality—the second time around. The last time we had this debate, the autumn repeal day—we talked about a bonfire. What we had was a bonfire of the vanity of the parliamentary secretary. It shows the priority of members opposite here that we are devoting today to ideology in place of substance. I think the member for Watson's contribution took us through that quite effectively. I did see the parliamentary secretary paying careful attention to the contribution of the shadow minister, as he should have done.
I was interested to follow the member for Reid's speech for a couple of reasons.
Very good speech!
I think it was a curate's egg of a speech. The one thing that was clear was the assessment of the member for Watson. The member for Watson's crystal ball worked pretty well, because it showed that the member for Reid had no interest in talking about the matters that are before the House.
He has run small businesses, not like you.
Yes, he has run a small business. That is not the matter which is before the House. He did not devote his speech to these three bills. I will take up the interjection, because he talked about vocations that people have before coming to this place that are worthwhile. I was pleased—and I think I can say touched!—that he recognised the front-line work of lawyers as being an appropriate calling to come here. So I thank the member for Reid for that. I was a little surprised to hear that, but I thank you for that vote of confidence. He talked about the need for a mature debate. What we have seen in the government's deregulatory agenda is anything but that. It is a triumph of stunts over substance.
You wish you came up with that.
No, no. I will turn to that briefly, Parliamentary Secretary, because what Labor is interested in in this debate are the first principles. I think everyone in this place is opposed to unnecessary regulation. That is an easy statement to make. It is a little harder to give effect to, as this debate is demonstrating. Let us think about first principles. The member for Reid also touched on the Deloitte report, which has been reported on in today's The Age newspaper. I look forward to digesting that report. I noted the comments of Chris Richardson from Deloitte as reported in The Age. He said this:
Let's be clear. Rules and regulations are vitally necessary. They cement the key foundations of our society, protecting the rule of law and a wealth of standards in everything from health to safety and the environment.
He went on to issue a challenge, a challenge that Labor members are up for, to look to the costs and to the benefits in enacting or, indeed, repealing legislation. To look at the costs and benefits—I think that is a pretty firm foundation for our engagement in this debate. It is very disappointing that the government's desire to manage the media cycle and no doubt to appease its ideological backers gets in the way of a proper consideration of the costs and benefits of particular pieces of legislation.
I was invited earlier to look to our record and I am very proud to do so. When you look at a worthwhile piece of deregulation, a worthwhile deregulatory agenda, I look at the former government's work through the COAG Reform Council and the Seamless National Economy. To touch on just one aspect of that which achieved great things in terms of consumer protection as well as productivity benefits and significant savings, I think about the step of establishing a single Australian consumer law—a single set of consumer protections—saving a billion dollars per annum. Sensible, effective, first-principles-informed deregulatory reform. Unnecessary regulation does not constitute the stunts that we are seeing today; it is a considered approach. Sometimes, as the member for Watson said, it is the routine business of government, the tidying up; on other occasions it is about doing hard work, having a mature debate. As has been said previously in this place, I believe by the member for Fraser, it is pretty clear to us that it is not a volume. This is not an exercise of piling up statutes, piling up hyphen-riven amendments; it is about the quality of the regulations, not the volume. That is pretty fundamental.
What we see here throughout this, in the desire to paint a clear ideological picture on the part of the member for Kooyong, are the ideological foundations of the debate going far beyond the practical matters that ought be considered here. Of the three bills that are before us today, I will largely confine my remarks to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, which amends and repeals legislation in Agriculture, Communications, Environment, Immigration, Border Protection, Industry, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Social Services, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs portfolios. Of course, it is one of three bills we will be debating today as part of the much vaunted spring repeal day package. But, despite the government's rhetoric, the savings in this bill are calculated to be a very small amount. To say it again: this is not much of a tea party. I note, as the member for Watson did, that this bill does not contain some of the measures that were outlined in the ministerial statement or some that have been featured reasonably prominently in media commentary. I will turn to this later in my contribution.
I note briefly the member for Watson dealt with the other two bills in his contribution and that these bills are largely concerned with repeal of amending legislation that is no longer in effect. I note briefly the irony of the parliamentary secretary effectively adding red tape in terms of enacting legislation that is clearly entirely redundant in terms of its effect.
Back in autumn I had the opportunity to speak on the previous omnibus repeal day during the consideration in detail stage, because, once again, the government lacks the courage of its convictions in this space and gagged debate there. It was not surprising that government members declined the opportunity to contribute to that debate, because then, as now, we have a lot of sound and fury that signify absolutely nothing. The parliamentary secretary then stood in this place, stood up loudly, beat his chest, made all kinds of claims about the Abbott's governments achievements at large. In fact, I particularly remember him invoking the great spirit of Menzies. It is telling that today in a less charged atmosphere he made no such invocations. I already have my doubts about this government being remembered favourably by anyone.
We have been remembering governments past in this place in recent weeks, and I think it bears us all reflecting on the enormous contrast between the breadth of vision, engagement and achievement of the Whitlam government and what we have seen in the past 14 months—achievements of substance by a government that transformed this country for the better or the combination of incoherence and ideology that has characterised this government. This is a government that does not do much, and what it does do it does badly. For instance, the Prime Minister associates this and the previous omnibus repeal bill with savings figures in the billions of dollars—although I note the parliamentary secretary has been dialling this down. Closer scrutiny of the explanatory memorandum reveals this figure to be relatively paltry for this bill. It is pretty small beer.
As the member for Watson has noted, this bill does not contain some of the deregulatory measures outlined in the ministerial statement—for example, ending the requirement to put mudflaps on motorbikes, changing OHS requirements for government building sites and changes to the Do Not Call Register are not among measures which are contained in this bill. Perhaps this may be seen as the Abbott government's competitive agenda in a nutshell: a series of announcements with very large numbers, and what is actually being achieved? Very little of substance.
Yesterday in this place we spent some time drawing out the government's hollow and vain rhetoric as it mutated into something much more sinister with the increase of the petrol tax. We saw the government facetiously cite the alcopops regulation, which took place under the former government, to justify this cynical circumventing of the parliament. This government is, effectively, comparing youth binge drinkers with everyday motorists. There is of course a massive difference between increasing the cost of alcopops to discourage youth binge drinking and this government's breaking of yet another election promise and increasing a tax that will hit people who are just trying to get to work or run some errands.
The Abbott government's own repeal day documents reveal the impact of the petrol tax ambush will be wider, with every petrol station to be slugged an amount of around $800 a year in new compliance costs to collect this tax. According to their own information, the government will hit the nation's 6,300 petrol stations with compliance costs totalling over $5 million. There is little doubt that this increased compliance cost will be passed on to motorists when they fill up at the bowser. They will be hit twice by this new petrol tax.
Make no mistake: this increase to the tax without concurrent spending on public transport will hurt the people I represent in the electorate of Scullin. There are, of course, limited and in many cases no alternatives to driving in Scullin and in outer suburbs right across Australia. We heard yesterday about where the revenue from this increase in the petrol tax will be going in Melbourne: to the east-west tollway, a tollway which does nothing for the people in Melbourne's northern suburbs except divert much-needed money away from investment in our roads and public transport.
I turn to one element of the bill in particular. We do have concerns about the effects of the bill. As well as the tidying up there are some matters of substance which do need to be attended to. In particular I am concerned about the reduction of information required to be contained in permits for the import or, indeed, the export of hazardous waste. I make this point: unlike those opposite, we do not believe that all environmental protection legislation is bad and in need of removal. We look to the evidence. We look to the first principles. I echo the contribution of that renowned socialist Chris Richardson of Access Economics. We look to the first principles to inform the necessity or otherwise of particular regulations. And it is particularly concerning to me that the parliamentary secretary has cited with such glowing approval the attempted repeal by the so-called Minister for the Environment of important environmental legislation in the EPBC Act. This reinforces the concerns I have that require further scrutiny. I note the aspect of the bill that I have touched upon—the proposed changes to hazardous waste—only saves $130,000. In this context I definitely think this is something which deserves much greater scrutiny before we potentially subject our environment to what could be devastating damage.
As the member for Watson drew out quite effectively, the activity of repealing spent and redundant acts and legislative instruments is part of the normal operation of government. It is what every government does. It is what every government should do. It is telling that the achievements of this government are so thin they feel the need to shout this from the rooftops and dress it up in such rich ideological baggage. The Abbott government in putting before us these bills and the show that goes with them seem to be demanding applause for simply walking and chewing gum at the same time. Perhaps when we look at the record writ large that is a reasonable request. I repeat the words of the member for Watson: in government, without fanfare, without a song and dance, without wasting the parliament's time, Labor repealed 16,794 acts and instruments. Labor did not need a special day or days to do it; we got on with the job of government.
Really, underpinning this is a big debate about the role of government, and I do thank the member for Reid for touching upon that and for touching upon serious considerations about the future of Federation. But this is not a mature debate or how we should have a mature debate. What is really interesting about this bill and the related legislation—contrary to everything the member for Reid said—is that it reveals how ideologically driven the government is on the one hand and how narrow the scope of its ambitions are on the other.
This is a government that is obsessed with the notion that all government is bad and that a survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog world is the best. We have a contrary view. The weak should be protected from the strong. People need the law to be on their side when odds are stacked against them. And, while there is a real debate to be had about deregulation, it is through this first-principles frame that Labor will approach it, looking at what is necessary and not simply asserting it. This is a debate that has been entirely filled with assertion from members opposite. It is underpinned by a fundamental irony. In all this talk about reducing red tape, this package of bills, like the omnibus bills in the autumn, seem ultimately to be about making busywork to keep the member for Kooyong, the parliamentary secretary, busy.
The Australian people are entitled to something that is more than glib, disingenuous assurances that this bill does no harm. More scrutiny is necessary in relation to certain aspects of it, and that is why we have moved to have this bill subject to a Senate inquiry—a good and proper process. Labor continues to be committed to an organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation informed by first principles.
I started this contribution by noting that this does not constitute much of a tea party. This bill is all about ideology, celebrating a particular view of the world without giving that view particular expression, and that is the sad thing on the part of the parliamentary secretary. This is ultimately government members looking in the mirror and liking what they see, and that is fair enough, but the parliament's time would be much better spent debating our real priorities—the future of Medicare, the higher education reforms—not a narrow exercise in ideology dressed up as something that it is not.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. That the member for Scullin does not see this as 'a real priority' is extraordinary, because that just does not reflect the feedback I have been getting from people in my electorate—businesses, organisations and others. As Tasmania's representative on the coalition's deregulation committee, I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming this bill which sends another very powerful message to the people of Australia.
I am proud to join this outstanding parliamentary secretary who has been doing outstanding work in this space. Often we talk about leadership and, when you fundamentally distil it, leadership is an influence relationship. It is about standing next to the big problems of most concern to our community and doing something about them. This Prime Minister, the ministers in his cabinet and this parliamentary secretary are standing next to a very big problem that I hear about every day in my community. I hear them tell me that this is indeed a real problem for our community. The combined effect of the two repeal days, the one in March and the one we are having now, represents a doubling of our promised target. We said that we would save a billion dollars each year in red and green tape. This parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister have delivered $2.1 billion in reduced compliance costs, with 400 measures to cut red tape across all agencies. That is, quite simply, real progress on problems that have a real impact on our national productivity.
What a contrast, in just the first year of the coalition government, with the inactivity in this area from those opposite during six years of 'hard Labor' from 2008 to 2013. You will no doubt recall Prime Minister Rudd's famous one on, one off promise—that for every new regulation that came through from the bureaucracy to the polity and out into our society, he would take one regulation out. He never met that promise. Indeed, what we saw was 21,000 new regulations come in—additional regulations—at the end of Labor's six years in office.
We have heard some comments this morning about lessons in economic history. I know the member for Kooyong is an economic historian. He looks at these things very carefully and he has written quite eloquently about the fact that, in the five financial years from mid-2007 until 2012, multifactor productivity in this country declined across Australia by three per cent. This is a real priority for our country because what we are doing will lift productivity; it will reduce the input costs on business, make them invest more and create more jobs. In my state of Tasmania, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country, that is particularly important.
In my home state of Tasmania I hear this persistent message from businesses, chambers of commerce and numerous other stakeholders. It reinforces what a red-hot button issue this is. They tell me about regulation imposing delays in getting projects approved and of the doubling up that occurs. I have people in the aged-care sector tell me that each year they have to go to hundreds of hours of effort to get their annual certification from both the state and the central government—hundreds of hours of essentially the same work. I have a small engineering firm telling me about an OH&S problem. The proprietor laid a harness down in front of me that is used for working on tall buildings. To me it looked like a new harness—the D-rings were in great shape, the stitching was in great shape—but he had to replace that harness simply because of its age. He had to get it checked twice every year—usually by people associated with the union movement and who imposed a cost on checking that harness—not because it was unsafe but because the binding, stifling regulation imposed by those opposite imposed that additional cost on his business. He would rather have been using that money to invest in his business.
Fixing these things is not a stunt, as the member for Scullin and his colleagues say it is. We are doing what we should do—listening to the people in our community and taking action. It is not as if Labor was not warned about the stifling impacts of their regulatory regime. Julia Gillard's own Borthwick-Milliner review in 2012, which looked at her government's regulation impact assessment processes, said 'a widespread lack of acceptance of and commitment by ministers and agencies' was a serious impediment to their effective use. The Gillard government was warned about the impact of their regulatory regime and they would not change because what we saw, in six years of Labor, was a deeply ingrained cultural foundation of risk aversion and centralised control. Every issue was always likely to get another regulatory sprinkle from Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd. That was seen as the solution to all problems—a little bit more Julia and a little bit more Kevin.
That is not good enough today, and the Abbott government has meaningfully addressed these concerns. We are ingraining a different culture within the bureaucracy and the polity. The Prime Minister himself has taken the lead on these issues. He has made regulatory reform a criterion of success for his ministers—the bureaucrats whose pay is linked to how successful they are at taking away some of those binding coils of regulation that stifle productivity in our country.
What we are trying to achieve is unity of purpose. We are trying to get the federal government and the state governments working more closely together. I will give you two examples of where that did not occur in the past. My predecessor, in mid-2011, opened a $1 million Building the Education Revolution facility at the Ringarooma Primary School at the same time that the state education minister—a Green in the Labor cabinet—was planning to close the Ringarooma Primary School. It was a clear case of left-hand, right-hand, with the Labor-Green government in Canberra and the Labor-Green government in Hobart each not knowing what the other was doing.
Nicola Roxon, I remember, came to Tasmania when she was the health minister to announce new beds for Northern Tasmania at the same time that the state government was disinvesting in health to the point that the Launceston General Hospital was closing two wards. On the one hand, there was the federal government saying, 'Here is money for new beds' and, on the other hand, the state government was disinvesting and taking money out of the healthcare system. We have a better health minister today who will make sure, in consultation with Michael Ferguson—that outstanding health minister in Tasmania—that will never happen again.
As a courtesy to my colleagues, I will keep my remarks much shorter than I intended. There are a huge number of speakers on our side of the House, but I will end where I started by congratulating the member for Kooyong, that outstanding parliamentary secretary who is making a real difference in leading the effort to make sure that red tape does not continue to spiral out of control and we make a real difference with the regulatory regime in this country.
I speak in relation to Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014. In a day that would rival New Year's Day in the affection of Australians, we are now celebrating yet another of the Abbott government's repeal days; another day that will launch a million-dollar press release—not a billion-dollar press release; another day that borrows from the US Republican playbook, and another day when the government expects a standing ovation for simply doing the everyday task of government: repealing spent and redundant acts and legislative instruments.
This was work that the Labor government, when we were in power, did without fuss and fanfare. I spoke on these types of bills many, many times in the previous six years under the Labor government but I do not recall too many of the coalition members actually speaking. In fact, many times these types of bills were sent to the Federation Chamber, where there was bipartisan agreement—getting rid of a comma or a semicolon, obsolete wording, errors of drafting and the like. Of course the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014 corrects drafting errors, modernises language, removes gender-specific language and repeals spent and obsolete provisions and acts. It is a bit like what we did when we were in government, but we did not set aside a whole day and issue press releases saying how wonderful we were.
The Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014 repeals about 650 amending acts or repeal acts between 1970 and 1979. That is all it was. Most of those provisions are spent, obsolete and redundant. Of course that is a big deal, according to this government. I think those opposite must be reading from the talking points of their ministers in relation to billions of dollars, because the truth is that these three bills together provide savings of $1.855 million including, by the way, the largest being in my shadow portfolio area of ageing, which is about $1.16 million in relation to notifications. That is what the explanatory memorandum and the documents associated with this particular legislation show.
That is as the shadow minister, the member for Watson, talks about—just 0.1 per cent of the figure claimed by the government. When we get those opposite talking like this about how wonderful this legislation is, it reminds me that the coalition is great at over-egging and scaremongering but also great at over-egging their achievements. This is what they are doing here today.
We demonstrated our commitment to minimising, simplifying and creating cost-effective legislation. We worked with the states and territories through the COAG process. Remember the COAG process?
In my portfolio area of Indigenous affairs, the coalition does not seem to be working at all through the COAG process. It abolished the COAG Reform Council, which was measuring how the government was achieving the Closing the Gap targets—and it was supposed to be partisan, by the way. It is doing nothing through the COAG process in Indigenous health—in fact, that is the evidence that departmental officials gave to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs that I am a member of. The government was supposed to be dealing with the COAG process in agreeing to the bipartisan targets for justice, because of the terrible incarceration rate in this country for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It was supposed to be agreeing with us that, no matter which side of politics got in in September 2013, justice targets and Closing the Gap would be worked on.
However, when we were in government we worked through the COAG process on the Seamless National Economy reforms. These reforms were about reducing the cost of business, and they were a success. In 2012 the Productivity Commission—not an organisation affiliated with the Australian Labor Party—assessed 17 of these reforms for its report Impacts of COAG reforms: business regulation and VET. The Productivity Commission suggested that these 17 reforms would increase the GDP by about 0.4 per cent, over $6 billion, and reduce business costs by about $4 billion a year. They estimated that the full implementation of those reforms that Labor pursued in government would lead to a dramatic increase in national productivity.
In contrast, we have the coalition government talking about their wonderful work, without acknowledging—and speaker after speaker today has not acknowledged—the nearly 17,000 acts and legislative instruments that Labor got rid of when we were in government. Often the changes we made were minor, but we did not break into a tap dance at the dispatch box when we made them. We removed redundant regulations, sunset clauses and other provisions that needed correction. We did it because that is what any government does. We did it without pointscoring, and it was often a bipartisan approach.
As I have said, I have spoken many times in relation to this legislation. I cannot say I gave my best speeches in the House of Representatives on it, but this legislation often was passed without any razzamatazz at all, to be honest. The majority of measures in this particular omnibus repeal day bill simply involve, as I said, repeal of redundant provisions. They are not contentious. They do not have any deregulatory savings attached to them. It is somewhat curious that the Prime Minister mentioned in his ministerial statement certain things—which were later reported in the media—that were going to be put in this particular legislation, including, for example, the requirement to attach mudflaps to motorbikes, changes to the Do Not Call Register by removing the requirement to reregister every eight years, and changes to occupational health and safety on government building sites. Many of these measures remain.
No matter how much the government keeps talking about these things and over-egging these measures, the truth is that none of them will change the world in any dramatic way and they will not save much in terms of dollars in compliance costs. For example, we see in the bill the abolition of the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia. Just briefly, the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia was established under the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 to provide a forum for the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries Services Australia and fishing industry officials. The forum has not convened, by the way, since the enabling legislation commenced, so abolishing it will not save a dollar. Also in the agricultural portfolio, the bill amends the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 to reflect certain payments to industry marketing and research bodies that are no longer made and, in fact, have not been made since 2008. The amendments will not save a dollar in compliance costs.
In the communications portfolio, Australians will no doubt be relieved to learn that the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 so that ACMA can publish its notices in a variety of methods. Currently, the Broadcasting Services Act requires ACMA to publish notices in the Commonwealth government gazette. This bill enables ACMA to publish these notices on its website and in newspapers. Gee! That is groundbreaking stuff. Thank goodness we have devoted a whole day in the chamber to this sort of stuff. The bill also repeals a redundant section in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, as SBS has assumed television production and supply of activities previously undertaken by the National Indigenous TV Limited.
In relation to other areas, another measure that is unlikely to set the cat amongst the pigeons is the abolition of the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council. From now on, the Department of the Environment will be able to engage with industry experts on a needs basis to gather advice and guidance on review process and other matters relating to the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme.
In the immigration portfolio, the bill repeals the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999. The purpose of this act is to validate particular decisions in relation to tariff concession orders that were made between 15 July 1996 and 31 May 1999. Decisions outside the period that ended 15 years ago are not affected and are therefore redundant. The omnibus bill repeals and amends a whole range of acts in relation to industry.
In terms of my shadow portfolio area, we are seeing some changes in relation to HACC. There is the repeal of the Home and Community Care Act. The act was redundant when the bilateral Home and Community Care program review agreements were deemed national partnership agreements—remember those national partnership agreements? Those opposite do not really like them—under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. We are getting rid of provisions in an act of parliament that are no longer necessary. So that is great; it will save a lot of money! A provision in the Aged Care Act that the sector really like, that we support and that is the largest deregulation savings in this bill—$1.160 million of $1.855 million will be saved—removes the obligation for approved providers to notify the secretary of the Department of Social Services of certain changes to key personnel within 28 days. We support that. We think it is a sensible measure in relation to the act, and so we support this provision. We are going to be as bipartisan as best we can. It is pity that the coalition has not adopted a bipartisan approach on the dementia and severe behaviours supplement or the dementia and cognition supplement. One program is oversubscribed and the government has been incompetent in relation to it; the other is undersubscribed and the government is not rolling out support for people with dementia in their homes. So it is good that government can actually focus on this stuff—but how about them focusing on the stuff that counts in the aged care portfolio.
We will see some amendments in relation to Indigenous affairs. This goes back to the days of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. When ATSIC were in operation, they used to make certain grants and loans to individuals and bodies and also to guarantee certain loans made to those individuals and bodies. When ATSIC were abolished, that power was passed to organisations like the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Indigenous Business Australia. What the proposal in this bill does is change the vesting of the statutory consent so that those bodies or, indeed, the Commonwealth, by the way, can waive the exercise of its statutory consent power by providing written notice to that organisation that its consent no longer be required. It is going to save a lot of money. To be honest, I think it is a pretty basic provision, and we will support it.
I have some real concerns about the amendments to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act, because one of the first acts of the Northern Territory government was to get rid of the Banned Drinkers Register, which the Northern Territory Labor government had successfully implemented. It was making a difference in the Northern Territory in reducing the shocking rate of alcohol abuse, which is directly linked to assaults on women and children and other Indigenous people in the Territory. Indigenous women in this country are 31 times more likely to be hospitalised because of assault by a partner or from familial abuse than non-Indigenous women; in the Northern Territory, it is about 80 times. We tried to implement alcohol management in the Northern Territory, which was supposed to be supported by the coalition government when they were in opposition. However, they have gone slow on alcohol management plans. Also, they have not said a peep about the CLP government in the Northern Territory, whose policies have opened the door to more alcohol abuse and more assaults in the Northern Territory.
A submission given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs by the Northern Territory police—that is, a union submission—mentioned by the way in relation to this legislation before the chamber that there is a direct correlation between alcohol abuse, assaults, violence and criminality in the Northern Territory. What is the government doing here, in relation to this legislation? They are saying, 'We don't think an independent review is required under the legislation for the operation of Commonwealth and Northern Territory laws relating to alcohol in the Northern Territory.' That takes from the transparency and accountability that a review of how those policies are impacting in the Northern Territory would provide. This is what they are saying. As a member of the standing committee looking at alcohol management in Indigenous communities, I say that the trouble is that the Northern Territory government is not cooperating with this standing committee. It has stifled evidence again and again and has been stopping us from getting that evidence
We have had non-cooperation from their colleagues and comrades in the Northern Territory and they are proposing that, because we have got an inquiry now and there is another formal review that the government is doing with the Northern Territory, that is good enough. I do not think it is good enough, to be honest with you. The other thing is simply getting rid of a provision that we think has some merit in relation to getting rid of the minister's power to request the Northern Territory government to appoint an assessor to conduct an assessment where they have not got the power to enforce the assessment in relation to licensing premises in certain circumstances. We think that is appropriate. The government has really over-egged itself in terms of this legislation before the chamber.
I find it quite amusing that the member for Blair came to us today and said that Labor have done a great job with deregulation and taking out so many regulations. If that was the case, why have we got so many industry associations and so many businesses that come and speak to me and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and say, 'We need to change this: we need to get rid of the compliance here and reduce the red tape there'? If they did their job properly, we would not be here today.
What are we doing? We are making some really significant changes in so many areas and it is important to our country because the reduction of not only red tape but also compliance costs will make it easier for businesses and easier for government departments. I have been working with the parliamentary secretary, as many of us have over the year, to address these blockages and get some real results. So whether I speak to those associated with the health industry or the freight and logistics councils at a national level, they say to me, 'Yes, we're talking to Josh, yes, he's moving on this and making some real inroads.' That is why we are here today to announce some of these important changes.
In my state at a local level I have been talking to many industry associations such as resources and energy, the freight council, restaurant and catering, aged care, building and construction and local government. All of them say that there are areas of red tape and compliance that we need to do better with. That is what we have done.
On energy and resources, I want to talk about the environmental approvals. We have two of the key players here. The Minister for the Environment has done very well working with the South Australian Labor government. I do not often have reason to give credit to the South Australian Labor government—the member for Makin might be interested in this as well—but they have done well to sign a bilateral agreement to streamline environmental assessments as part of the Commonwealth government's one-stop shop reform. As we know, these new agreements create a single environmental assessment process and, in particular, they remove the duplication of federal, state and territory planning, which adds to time and costs for environmental approvals. Importantly, they save around $420 million a year.
We have even got a former Labor minister, Martin Ferguson, who sees the wisdom in this policy who says it is a priority to implement. We hope all will get on board with this important initiative so that it can progress important projects such as job creation projects in my home state, including many in the mining sector, that require approvals at the environmental and planning stage. We have seen delays happen at Olympic Dam with BHP Billiton. This has been an issue in the past and we need to get our head around it and make some changes, as we have proposed, going forward. We had two-and-a-half years after the initial release for public consultation of the environmental approvals to when it was actually approved. This is the type of situation we need to prevent.
On key areas of importance for my state in terms of defence: the Defence Materiel Organisation will benefit from e-tendering project facilities to facilitate the electronic communication of tender requirements—$2.6 million in compliance costs saved. The Australian Standard for Defence Contracting templates is another important initiative that will reduce between five to 10 days of work for industry—another $1 million of compliance costs removed. I mentioned resources and energy before. The non-defence use of the Woomera prohibited area has been put through and it is an important initiative to simplify the process by which mining and resources businesses gain access to this area by introducing standard permit arrangements.
In terms of small business, as outlined in the 2014 autumn repeal day we have got a helpline to assist small business owners with advice on employee wages and workplace laws. I know from my wife's experience and others who talk to me in small business that these changes in laws and the information they need in some of these more technical areas are sometimes beyond them. So that is where this helpline is of great importance.
Finally, I just want to refer to a couple of other things affecting other sectors of our economy. One is the financial reporting for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, so that they submit the same financial reports on their annual information statements, and the other is ATO's new online tax service, myTax. Generally across government there are a whole lot of different initiatives in terms of online point of access for government services that are important changes. Local clubs and organisations who are limited by guarantee with less than $1 million in revenue no longer require an auditor. This was previously required through audited financial reports. Again, these are important changes. Today Deloitte released a report showing the impact of red tape—costing $27 billion to administer.
We need to keep chipping away, keep making inroads and keep getting results. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg; the Prime Minister, who is driving this as well; and ministers, like the environment minister who is here, are doing a great job of getting results and helping businesses and government organisations for a better society.
What a lot of fuss and feet-stamping and stomping around the place! They are like kids who have just learned how to play in a new playground. They have just been given a new playground in the last 12 months and here the Liberals are in government, stomping around going, 'Look at me, look at me, look at all the great things we are doing.' The only problem is, they are just not doing anything that great. In fact, they are just doing the ordinary, mundane, everyday work that parliaments do and have done since time immemorial. Parliaments do this every single day.
In fact, when Labor was in government we got rid of some 16,734 pieces of regulation. We did not make a song and dance about because there was no need—it is the ordinary work of government. That is what government does. It is meant to introduce new and improved regulations to make people's lives better and allow small business people to enjoy better protections and have more efficient systems of government and taxation and a whole range of things. At the same time, it should take away regulations that are redundant, superfluous, outdated and just do not do anything. To take away hyphens, commas, full stops, dot points and misspellings within acts is fine—all of that Labor supports. In fact, we support the bills that are before us, because there is nothing extraordinary or even ordinary in here; it is less than ordinary.
The three bills we are discussing today are the government's so-called repeal day legislation. There should be a repeal day every single day. Why leave it to just one day? Why should the parliament stop its ordinary work to have this special day where the government says: 'Look at us. Please give us a medal for doing our work'? It is the equivalent of ordinary workers who go to work every day and saying, 'On Monday I want a medal for going to work.' That is what the minister wants. He wants a medal for doing his job. Most people are happy to have the job and do the job. They may get accolades later but not before they have done it. The minister has not even done it yet and he wants the accolades and the medal today.
The country is stopping on the repeal day. This is so important for the government. On top of wanting a medal for it they want to have their own special day. This is the Liberal Party's special day. They go: 'Look at us. We want a special day so we can repeal the sort of stuff that was around in 1910, 1920 and 1930 that does not apply to anyone.' They have this whole hullabaloo over all this stuff. I actually feel sorry for the member for Kooyong because very soon—and it might even be today—he is going to run out of dot points, hyphens, misspellings and commas. He comes in here claiming he is going to fix the budget and the woes of the world comma by comma—'We will fix the economy comma by comma and dot point by dot point. We will take away the misspellings and redundant pieces of legislation.'
All that would be a lot of fun. I would enjoy it and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would too. You would enjoy it. We could all come in here and have a national repeal day. I know let us have a national turn up to work day. Let us have a national we will talk in parliament day. Let us have a national the sun came up this morning day. Let us have the Liberal Party is really great day. Why don't we just do one of those? It will make them feel a lot better.
Why don't the government actually do something real? This stuff here—and I will be very kind and fair here—is just rubbish. It is rubbish because it just does not do anything. There is a whole heap of fuss over absolutely nothing. The Labor Party are prepared to support this not on the basis that it is great or does anything outstanding or changes the world; just because it is something we would do every day of the week anyway. We will let it slide through. It is nothing special. We do not disagree with the government that we should take away commas that are in the wrong place, fix the misspellings and all the rest of it. It is a shame that the government try to pin badges on themselves and give themselves medals for doing this and say that somehow they are going to save all of us from something they have created in the first place.
The tragedy though—the really bad news—is that they are using this as a mask or a cloak because in other bills they are taking away consumer protection laws and regulations. Those good regulations are designed to protect ordinary mums and dads from losing not just hundreds of thousands of dollars but, for some, their whole life savings. I have seen it. I am tired of it. I am sure some members of the Liberal Party are tired of seeing ordinary working people lose their life savings to scammers and fraudsters. Labor worked very hard with the sector and the industry for many years to change the culture, lift the standards and lift education to make sure that in financial services we can protect people as best we can. It is sad but there are unfortunately people who do bad things and some of those bad things lead to people losing their life savings. What did we see this government do in the name of deregulation? It took away the consumer protection laws that we put in place that were designed to help protect them.
What else did the government do with this so-called repeal of regulations? They took away from small business $4 billion worth of assistance. The member for Kooyong is still in the chamber. It is nice to see him listening to me. I am obviously saying things that are important enough for him to stay, so I thank him. The member for Kooyong should have a very close look at how much money the government—the so-called friends of small business—have taken away from small business. Small business used $4 billion worth of direct assistance. Small business in this country benefited to the tune of more than $4 billion in direct assistance that Labor put in place to help them through a range of things such as tough economic times and to reduce the regulatory burden and red tape to make life easier for them.
On their first day on the job what did the so-called friends of small business, the Liberal Party, do? They smashed it. They took away more than $4 billion worth of direct assistance. There was the tax loss carry back, which meant that small business could improve their cash flow position and could invest in new equipment and people. There was the instant asset write-off, which under the Liberal Party was $1,000. When Labor got to government we gave small business $6,000 because we understood that this was a really important measure. Our policy at the last election was to take that to $10,000 because we know that small business will make best use of that assistance by investing it, and the only way they can get it is by investing in their business.
People can stick badges on themselves. I am getting the drift here too of what the government are actually about—and I thank the member for Kooyong. They want a medal for turning up to work every day. They love to drape the flag over themselves and talk about grandiose things. Now they want to have conversations about the Federation. Where have they been for the last 100 years? We have all been having conversations about the Federation. Is this Rip Van Winkle hour or something? Suddenly they have discovered there is a Federation and there may be some efficiency issues and to deal with those they have to work with the states. Well, hello? Hello, Liberal Party? Is there anyone inside? Is there anyone home?
This is the stuff that governments do every single day of the week. You do not need a special day off for it, a day off from the ordinary work of the parliament, so we can hear the Minister for Small Business. I am listening for him, but there is dead silence. I cannot hear the Minister for Small Business. Where is the Minister for Small Business? Shouldn't he be banging the table and saying, 'We are the best friend of small business.' They love to badge themselves. I am really picking up the theme here. They cloak themselves in defence, national security and the Australian flag. Under that cloak you can do whatever you like and no-one can criticise you. Once you drape the flag over yourself, you are safe. Anything you do is in the name of national security so it is just okay. Where is the Minister for Small Business, who drapes the Australian flag over himself and says he is the best friend of small business? Where is he? I thank those in the gallery. I hope I gave you a little bit of good news and some entertainment.
When the Minister for Small Business remains silent on key issues within his portfolio that directly impact on small business negatively he is being derelict. It is derelict of his duty, derelict of his position and a snub to small business. Small-business people are hard-working people. I hear him, whether he is at the dispatch box or talking to some group, talk about the love that he has for small business. I would say to him: show some, stand up for small business and give them back some of the things that Labor had already put in place that the minister and the Liberal government have taken away. Do not just keep professing your love for small business; demonstrate it, show that love and give them something back because you took it away.
On his first day on the job, the Minister for Small Business's duty was to take an axe and wield it across small business, basically defund assistance programs and then claim credit for all the things we put in place—online reporting, streamlining of the Superannuation Clearing House, business name registrations. The list goes on and on of the hard work, the hard lifting and the stuff we got criticised for because the implementation is always complex and difficult. But, as a government, that is your job. That is what you are elected to do. So we went and did it. The Liberals then came to government, claimed credit for it and now they say 'look at us' while they drape themselves in a badge of repeal day.
It is the Liberal Party day-off day. The interesting thing about the Liberal Party day off today is they had a whole heap of their members on the list to speak on this stuff. They gagged their own members because their own members did not have anything to say. This is outrageous that we have this in the parliament.
Other people might say, and you would have heard this figure thrown around the place, there will be $2 billion worth of savings. Let us have a look for savings today. What are the savings contained in the omnibus repeal day bill as per the Liberal Party and as per what the bills say? Wait for it; it is not in the billions, it is not in the hundreds of millions and it is not even in the tens of millions—we getting down to really small numbers. Imagine the trillions of dollars that are in the national economy. Apparently the savings identified in this bill are a tidy $1.335 million. So all the hullabaloo, all the fuss, all the foot stamping around the place was for 1.1 $.335 million.
I welcome the one million bucks. This is good news, of course it is. But it just does not deserve the Liberal Party having a day off. Today is national Liberal Party day-off day and Tony Abbott wants two of these a year. He has already had a day-off day and now he wants to have another Liberal Party day-off day where they do not have to do much because the bills are here. They do not want speak on it because they have gagged their own speakers. So what are they going to do for the day? They can all just go and have a rest. There will be no divisions on this stuff because Labor is supporting it.
It is the Liberal Party have a day off day. Everybody else has to go to work. Everybody else does not get a medal for turning up on Wednesday to work, except the Liberal Party. They want a day off and they want a medal too. They want a medal for not turning up for work. This is just unbelievable.
Deregulation should be about deregulation. What are we actually looking at? What is in these bills? There are no deregulatory savings attached to the bills. So, minus claimed savings that are so small they are effectively, in budgeting terms, zero, have a look at what this represents in the claimed overall figure. The claimed overall figure they are going to save is $2 billion—there are a lot of zeros attached to that one. But according to the bill today—national Liberal Party day off repeal day—it will be 0.1 per cent. Where is the rest of it—you would have to start asking the question.
Apparently we are going to have two more of these repeal days. On the basis of just two so far, if we want to work down sliding scale, if it starts up here then it hits the floor on day 2. What does day 3 look like? When we get to No. 3 it is going to be the interesting bit. When they run out of commas, dot points, hyphenations and other bits of redundant legislation, what is next? I do not know. Maybe the next Liberal Party speaker can enlighten us on what they are going to get rid of next.
I know what they are doing though. They are slashing funding to small business, slashing funding to universities, increasing university fees to $100,000 and introducing a new GP tax. They said there would be no new taxes and no increased taxes yet what we are seeing are not only new taxes but also increased taxes. And then they claim that increasing the indexation is not an increase. Well, if it is not an increase then why did the Treasurer come in yesterday and say, 'Sure it is going to cost you more but it is only a little bit.' So, yes, it is going to hurt you but it is only going to hurt you a little. I get the nuance. Some in the Liberal Party say it is not an increase; it is actually a decrease. Others say it is going to hurt a little bit. Whether it hurts a little bit or a lot, it is still a broken promise. A broken promise is a broken promise.
The Prime Minister, when in opposition, came in again wrapping himself in the Australian flag, cloaking himself in national security and carrying on about getting rid of red tape. It is going to get rid of so much red tape you get the impression there is going to be none left. They are talking about compliance, defence and all the rest of it. The Liberal Party's trajectory and view on this is: let's get rid of red tape. The impression is that it is going to get down to zero. There will be no red tape, no compliance, no need to adhere to any rules, no regulations. I am with you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, it would probably be taking it too far, wouldn't it? I agree 100 per cent. If it cannot be down to zero compliance, there must be some compliance. Why do we have regulations and laws? Why do we have compliance? Because it is actually good for people to have laws on the road to protect them and keep them safe, laws for small business to protect them and keep them safe from predators and big business, and a whole range of other really good things. Today is a farce. It is the national Liberal Party day-off day. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring) Bill 2014. The measures in this bill will have a significant impact on reducing red tape across a range of portfolio areas. In the time available to me, I would like to make three points: firstly, unnecessary red tape is a serious problem facing our nation and our economy; secondly, the Abbott government is determined to reduce red tape; and, thirdly, in the communications sector—for which I have some portfolio responsibility as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Communications—the minister and I have a strong focus on reducing red tape.
Let's start with the general proposition that red tape is a serious problem in our economy. It is clear that the prevalence of red tape has a negative impact on productivity. If you compare how Australia performs against other nations in the world, in 2014 we ranked 124th out of 148 countries for the burden of government regulation in the World Competitiveness Index. The cost of doing business in Australia relative to other nations is too high—simply too high. The Productivity Commission, for example, estimates that regulatory compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP—that is a staggering number.
And I would like to acknowledge here the outstanding work done while the coalition was in opposition by our red-tape reduction task force, chaired by Senator Arthur Sinodinos, with deputy chairs Kelly O'Dwyer, the member for Higgins, and Senator David Bushby. In particular, I would like to quote from something that Senator Sinodinos said in a speech in 2012:
Unnecessary red tape is a contributing factor to Australia's productivity challenge. The Productivity Commission estimates that reducing red tape will boost national GDP by $12 billion a year. Across industry, it's believed red tape accounts on average for four per cent of business costs.
The second reason why red tape is a serious problem is its tendency to continue to grow. If government does not take decisive action the unfortunate reality is that red tape tends to be ever expanding. Reporting obligations which are in place and which have been put there for all the best reasons tend to grow and grow and grow. The great virtue of the promise that this government made—or that the coalition made when in opposition and that we are implementing now that we are in government—to have two repeal days a year is that you have a systematic and continuing focus on the growth of regulation and opportunities to remove regulation—regulation that has outlived its usefulness or regulation, the cost of which exceeds the benefit.
The need for this action in relation to regulation and in relation to red tape is only increased because we have the misfortune of succeeding a government in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government which showed an extraordinary enthusiasm for adding regulatory burden to the Australian economy. The Labor government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—added over 21,000 new regulations and repealed 105, notwithstanding the promise made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, in 2007 that his government would have a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy. That was a promise that was never honoured.
And there is plenty of evidence of the pressure that this was imposing on participants in the economy. Let me refer you, for example, to the October 2012 National Red Tape Survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This was a survey of 870 businesses across all states and territories, which found that 73 per cent of businesses believed that the overall regulatory compliance burden had increased in the previous two years and that 60 per cent of businesses spent more than $5,000 per annum directly on costs related to regulatory requirements. And there is a long and depressing list of regulatory burdens that were in place at the time that the previous government had completed its handiwork—for example, the national child care law of 180 pages plus an additional 345 pages of regulations and 1,149 pages of guidelines. There was the reality that universities typically have regulatory compliance departments with 15, 20 or more staff dedicated to ensuring compliance with over 100 separate state and federal acts. In Indigenous service delivery, as at the time that the previous government left office, there were more than 200 Indigenous related programs administered by 17 Commonwealth agencies. Each program had its own application form and processes. And there is the example from the resources sector of one particular project which required 4,000 meetings before approval was granted and on which 12,000 state and 300 Commonwealth conditions were ultimately placed.
So under the previous government we had a very enthusiastic set of regulators who added substantial new regulatory burdens on a continuing basis every day they turned up for work. The previous speaker, the member for Oxley, spoke about turning up for work. There is no doubt that the previous government saw its role as being to increase regulation. Indeed, the previous Manager of Government Business, the member for Grayndler, used to enjoy telling the House how many pieces of legislation had been passed, because the only metric that he seemed to think was important was how many new laws and how much additional regulatory burden had come into force. On this side of the House we take a different perspective. We want to carefully look at the laws and regulations that are in place and ask, 'Are they still fit for purpose? Are they still delivering benefits which exceed their costs?'
That brings me to the second proposition that I want to put today: the determination of the Abbott government to reduce red tape; to have a process which acts as a corrective to the institutional factors which drive red tape to increase. The approach that we have taken has been warmly welcomed by many sectors of the community. But I want to quote particularly somebody from the non-profit sector—the community sector. Tony Nicholson, the executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence said, 'We warmly welcome the government's red-tape reduction agenda. Streamlining our reporting and compliance requirements makes a real difference as it frees up resources to be directed towards helping disadvantaged young families.'
I think that is a very powerful reminder, in the context of that particular organisation's mission, that time and resources which are allocated to meeting compliance requirements and reporting requirements are time and resources which are diverted from the core mission of any organisation which is subject to regulation. That is something those on the opposite side are very happy to ignore but it is something that those on this side of the parliament are acutely conscious of.
That is one reason why in coming to government we have set a very aggressive target in terms of the dollar value of the savings we want to deliver in reduction in compliance costs. Pleasingly, we are at a point where we have reached a net reduction of over $2 billion in compliance costs so far. The bill before the House today continues this work by removing almost 1,000 pieces and some 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation. And it builds on the work of the first repeal day in March of this year, when over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation and over $700 million of compliance costs were removed.
Thirdly, I would like to turn to some of the specific initiatives in the communications sector, where we are taking very seriously the importance of working to identify items of regulation which have served their purpose and are no longer required and where there is a capacity to remove that regulation and deliver benefit to industry participants and to consumers. That is of particular importance when you have a sector like the communications sector which is very heavily regulated and which is changing very quickly. As the technology is evolving at a rapid rate there are multiple instances of regulatory provisions which are no longer fit for purpose. They simply deal with, for example, industry practices or technologies which are no longer used. There is good potential to identify deregulatory initiatives in the communications sector and that has been the focus of the Minister for Communications and myself as his parliamentary secretary.
I want to highlight one set of measures in the legislation before the House this morning which is of importance in this general deregulatory thrust in the communications portfolio. Throughout the legislation in the portfolio there are extensive and prescriptive requirements in relation to consultation. For example, section 87A(9) of the Broadcasting Services Act requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority to seek public comment before imposing, varying or revoking conditions of a community TV license. Section 126 of the Broadcasting Services Act requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority to seek public comment before determining, varying or revoking a program standard under part 9 of the act. There are similar provisions in the Interactive Gambling Act, the Radiocommunications Act and the Telecommunications Act—all of them quite prescriptive and detailed. But this is the point: at the same time there is a general regime applicable to all regulators, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority and other agencies within the communications portfolio. Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act requires that a rule maker, subject to limited exceptions must be satisfied that appropriate and reasonably practicable consultation has been undertaken prior to making a legislative instrument. That is a good principle. Of course, there ought to be reasonable and appropriate consultation before a legislative instrument is made. But when that principle is in place and has the force of law and applies as a general principle across the activities of all regulators and all rule makers, it really does cause you to ask the question: why do we additionally have a series of specific provisions which do exactly the same thing? One of the changes contained in the bills before the House this morning is to remove a series of provisions in the communications portfolio pieces of legislation which set out specific consultation requirements on the basis that the general requirement to consult, in section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act, will remain in place.
I want to emphasise that there is not going to be any variance of the general principle of the importance of consultation, but that duplication will be removed and potentially there will be more flexibility in the mode of consultation, provided it meets that overriding test of being appropriate and reasonably practicable.
The measures in the bills with regard to the communications portfolio are important ones and they complement other measures that we are taking as part of this second repeal day. For example, we are moving to a one-time sign-up system for the Do Not Call Register. The importance of this is that there are some nine million telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Register and it would hitherto have been a requirement, had we not made this change, that all of those people who are on the register would have been required to renew their registration, because there was a time limit on the previous status of having your number on the register. We have removed that requirement and that reflects the fact that millions of people have exercised a choice; they have made a conscious choice and we have removed the requirement for them to have to reregister. That is going to save a lot of time and money.
Another reform which reduces red tape in the communications portfolio is a relaxation of the requirements applying to so-called battery backup for the National Broadband Network. Under the previous government's approach, consumers were required to have a battery backup system installed, regardless of their desire or need to have one. It was decreed by the then minister, Senator Conroy. He knew best and all consumers needed to have a battery backup system. Of course, many consumers may not want or need one. Many have indicated that they would be happy to rely upon their mobile phone connection for voice services in the event of a power failure. Indeed, the statistics show that only 75 per cent of Australian adults had a fixed line in the home as at December 2013. In other words, a quarter of Australians today have made an active choice to rely on their mobile phones for voice services—including, of course, in an emergency. Our approach is very different to the centralised Conrovian compulsion which characterised the previous government. I am pleased to say that on the question of battery backup, the fresh daylight of choice and freedom is rising and banishing the grim and leaden darkness of Conrovia. We are enabling informed choices on battery backup installations, leading to an annual saving estimated at over $20 million in compliance costs.
The coalition government is seizing the opportunity to reduce the regulatory cost of business across many sectors, including the communications sector. Let's remember why we are doing it: as a means to stimulate business activity, economic growth and jobs.
I rise today to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. Obviously that word 'omnibus' is not used in everyday language so I thought I had better do a bit of research. I notice the member for Flinders is here so I went to his favourite research tool, Wikipedia, and also the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary just to calibrate. The definition of 'omnibus' is given as a volume containing several novels. I do not think that is what we are talking about here. If we combined a couple of novels such as when my third novel comes out and if we were to put all three together, that might be an omnibus. We are not talking about that. The other meaning for omnibus is an old word for a bus. Certainly all lawyers would have heard of the expression 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. I will read from Wikipedia which says:
… a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would—for example, in a civil action for negligence. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.
In Australia the Clapham omnibus equivalent expression would be, 'the man on the Bondi tram, or 'the man on the Bourke Street tram'. I did not realise that Bondi had a tram, but you get the expression of what an omnibus would be.
Certainly the man on the Clapham omnibus would say of this piece of legislation that has been dragged into this chamber today: 'Who are you trying to kid that this is some big celebratory day, this repeal day, when this is just the everyday work of government.' This is what governments do. When Labor was in government we repealed 16,794 acts and regulations during our time in office, but we did not put out a press release saying it. We did not make speeches, we did not walk the corridors saying, 'Where's my medal for turning up for work?' We did not walk around saying, 'This is fantastic. We are the best government ever.' I see that the member for Gippsland is here, so he would know about this: I think you do actually get a medal in the military for turning up for work, but that is after three years, which is my understanding. The member might be able to inform me on that. I do not think they give out medals just for turning up for one year and just for actually doing your job. This is ridiculous.
We have had press releases saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread. Really, this is just the Liberal Party politicians day off, as described by the member for Oxley. This is not worthy of a press release and certainly is not worthy of members. I heard the member for Kooyong say on Sky this morning that this was spring cleaning. If his job was spring cleaning and he did this, where he said that the three bills are part of the $2 billion delivery of savings, well, the claimed deregulatory savings are $1,855,000 or just 0.1 per cent of the figure claimed by the government. The member for Kooyong said that this is his spring-cleaning effort. If he were a cleaner, he would be sacked. He would not even be performance managed, he would be thrown out of the house and told, 'This is not cleaning'. For him to claim that this is a significant thing is ridiculous. Obviously deregulation, as every sensible politician knows, is the everyday work of government. We can see it, because we are actually debating this piece of legislation, the everyday work of government, in the House rather than in the Federation Chamber. This exposes the facade and exposes the paucity of a legislative agenda of those opposite.
It is great that we see it through the prism of the death of Gough Whitlam, that great reformer. Sure, he had a few years in opposition to craft his agenda. When he came into office, he quickly, within 14 days, had done so much. He had upgraded the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to ministerial level. I say that in the presence of the member for Lingiari. Within 30 days of gaining office the Whitlam government had ended conscription—that birthday ballot—and brought our troops home from Vietnam, and introduced many other significant things that changed society. I will not go back over them because the eulogies and other speeches have detailed them. But that is the prism through which we look at this repeal day, this omnibus repeal day, or more accurately called 'the Liberal day-off day'.
The reality is the government do not have a good, strong, legislative agenda. You would think that after four years in opposition under the Prime Minister's leadership, under the member for Warringah's leadership, they would have mapped out a bit of a plan and had an agenda. They kept saying, 'We're going to be the experienced government, because we'll have experienced Howard government ministers.' Ironically they turned out to be complete duds. It is the new people coming through, the younger people elected after the Howard government, that are actually seen to have a bit of skill and ability. These other people have become a joke almost.
This legislation, claimed by the government to be this magnificent attempt to deregulate and reduce taxes, is really what governments do. Every government does it. The bill before the House has been spun by the government as part of a promise to deregulate $2.3 billion, but they should not be walking the corridors saying, 'Where's my medal?' and lining up at the whip's office when all they have done is the work of every government. It is actually articulating the work of the public servants who do all this sorting out of redundant materials and reviews that have occurred and the like, crossing out commas, changing the old word for 'email' to the new word for 'email'. That is not something that you should be celebrating as a government, seriously. After all those years, while the member for Warringah has been leader, you would think he would have a stronger agenda.
Obviously the government has been a disappointment in so many ways, not only in this legislation, but in the commitment as to what would happen before the election and what happened after the election as there is a great yawning chasm. We have heard it all—there would be no cuts to pensions, no surprises, no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to SBS, no rise in the GST. I think there was a promise about no petrol tax. I am sure the Nationals are still fuming over the way they were tricked by the member for Mayo into bringing a tax onto the bush, because that is really what this will be. We are all paying more at the petrol bowser and that is going to be a tax on the bush. I am sure the National Party are still furious about the way they were tricked.
When we were in government, like all sensible governments, we took a sensible, methodical approach to reducing red tape. What we see here today is smoke and mirrors, and not anywhere near the saving that had been promised by those out in the corridors. They were desperate for something to talk about in their electorates, desperate to be able to say, 'This is something good that we have done.' If you look at the front of their electorate offices, there are tumbleweeds rolling past waiting for the MPs to come out. They are in hiding and they are scared of this budget. Has there ever been more of a stinking carcass of a budget foisted on the Australian people? I do not think so.
The only highlight in the retail of this budget was when the Treasurer was overseas. That was the only time when there was some time for the Australian people to understand it. But, unfortunately for the coalition government, the Treasurer is back. He has already flagged that there might even be further cuts when the budget is reviewed in December.
Before the election, the now Prime Minister and now Treasurer fabricated a crisis around the budget. But everyone knows, whilst there are some challenges coming, the budget was actually in a strong position. Obviously there have been some increases in spending since the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—took government, but the fault for that lies at their door. They misled voters time and time again when they talked about spending on welfare and even something as simple as building submarines in the great state of South Australia. There was a simple commitment from the then shadow defence minister, who said, 'We will build submarines in South Australia.' There was not any spin or weasel words; David Johnston is a straight-shooting guy. I think he should honour that commitment.
The budget has lots of challenges, but I will return to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) legislation before the chamber—or, as I call it, the 'Liberal Party politicians' day off' legislation. I listened to the few speeches that have been given on this. I see there is a very, very long speaking list. I would have thought those opposite would have been lining up to celebrate this, but perhaps they have been gagged. I notice that they can only speak for five minutes or so each. I look forward to the great contributions celebrating this 'turning up for work' legislation.
I note in this context that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was one of the so-called bits of red tape that the government sought to get rid of. The earlier farcical repeal day wanted to get rid of this critical oversight office. They called it red tape. They sought to repeal the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, an organisation dedicated to reviewing Australia's counter-terrorism and national security legislation. It is an office that does great work. They say 'red tape'; we say 'checks and balances'. It is appropriate that government have some people monitoring what goes on in the area of particularly security legislation where so often we are compromising freedoms, liberty and individual choices. It is balanced with safety; I understand that. It is not done willy-nilly. It is done for a reason. But we also need checks and balances. We have seen, as the Snowdon documents revelations have shown, that government is not necessarily going to self-regulate well. Sometimes we need that independent oversight.
I note that we have had six or seven months without that office being filled in an environment where we are bringing in lots of important legislation that people have a lot of concerns about. I have been receiving lots of emails. The next wave of legislation, particularly dealing with metadata, has a lot of people in my electorate concerned. It is important that we have that Independent National Security Legislation Monitor role filled. I would urge the Attorney-General to do his job and fill that role. That position has been vacant since April and, in a time of great change, this is not acceptable. It is a hard role to fill, but I am sure that an appropriately credentialled and experienced monitor should be able to be found shortly and put in place.
By insisting on dramatically shortened sunset periods on statutory reviews both by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and by the committee, we improved the legislation that will come before this chamber in the near future.
Obviously red tape can be synonymous with checks and balances. Good government gets rid of unnecessary red tape. That is what good governments do. But, please, do not come in here, beating your chests, saying, 'We turned up for work.' It is ridiculous turning up and asking, 'Where is my medal for getting rid of some legislation?' As I said, when Labor were in office for six years, we repealed 16,794 acts and regulations. Most of that sort of work took place up in the Federation Chamber. I know I spoke on some of those bits of legislation. They were incredibly tedious and incredibly boring. That is the work of government. That is what government should continue to do.
But for the Liberal and National parties to say, 'This is the best thing since sliced bread,' just shows that they have no vision. This fortnight we have talked about what leaders with vision can achieve for this nation, even flawed leaders, as we have acknowledged of the late Mr Whitlam. We need the nation's leaders to have courage, not to be looking in the footlights and trying to spin cutting red tape as a great thing.
At the very same time we have the Prime Minister walking around the country saying, 'We need to have a discussion about Federation,' he needs to show a little bit of leadership in this chamber and in his party room. The reality is that this government does not have a serious vision. They have been disgraceful when it comes to acting on climate change. They successfully won on that at the election, but now we have been betrayed by the lack of action in the Direct Action policy, which seems to have evaporated. Even when it comes in, it will be neither direct nor have any action.
This bill is about good governance. As times change, many issues of governance change with those times. Rules and regulations become obsolete, and the coalition government is taking steps to ensure business and the Australian people are not weighed down with needless imposition by government into their lives. Not only that but rescinding these unnecessary measures saves money for the government and business. This means the coalition government can once again proceed to pull Australia out of the deficit disaster and financial mire in which we were left well and truly bogged by Labor and ensure business has more time and more money with which to employ Australians.
Interestingly, I had the pleasure to be on Mornings with Steve Austin on 612 ABC Brisbane last week with the member for Oxley. He commented, as did the member for Moreton just now, that these repeal bills were nothing special—that repealing unnecessary legislation was just a part of governing. He also said that while in power Labor had repealed thousands of pieces of redundant legislation but had done so without fanfare. The lack of fanfare could have been because, at the end of the day, there was a net increase—21,000 extra pieces of legislation—under Labor.
The member for Moreton called repealing redundant legislation 'a politician's day off' and said that they had done everything without fanfare. In fact, however, then Prime Minister Rudd had a red-tape website. Under his smiling face, you could apply to get a fact sheet about red tape. So perhaps there was not as little fanfare as the member for Moreton recalls. The claim that they quietly cut red tape with a lack of fanfare is hard to believe—because the previous Rudd, Gillard and Rudd governments would turn up to the opening of an envelope if it got them media coverage. They even organised media for events that never occurred, such as when they published glossy brochures announcing they had delivered a surplus, which we know they never did. Lastly and most significantly, these repeal days actually save money—and we know that those opposite know nothing about saving money.
If what the member for Oxley said were true, then why is it necessary for this government to abolish the Fishing Industry Policy Council? Formed in 1991 by the last true Labor leader, Bob Hawke, it has met precisely zero times since its creation 23 years ago. Why is it necessary for us, the coalition, to repeal the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970 when the loan it refers to was finalised and paid back 20 years ago when Keating was Prime Minister? Perhaps, though, we should leave that act in place as a reminder to those opposite that loans do need to be repaid.
If, as the member for Oxley—if no-one else—claims, Labor are so good at cleaning up, why are Australians of all ages, from those born today to those passing today, indebted to the tune of $15,000 each to the former Labor-Greens alliance government? A child born right now, this very minute I am speaking, is in debt because of the reckless inability of Labor and their Greens henchmen to stop burning a hole in the national credit card. We have heard a lot in this place, since the passing of Gough Whitlam, about legacy. That debt is the legacy of the last Labor rotation behind the wheel—the car crashed sideways into a tree because too many people were trying to drive and our economy was whisked away from the scene of the crime to be placed on life support.
Those opposite drone on endlessly about rising costs, about students maybe having to pay extra for their education. That would not even be an issue if mum, dad and their two children did not have a $60,000 millstone around their necks courtesy of 'the best Treasurer in the world'. Perhaps we need an omnibus edition of a new bill, one that garnishees the member for Lilley's parliamentary salary to pay the Australian taxpayer back for his hubris. I would dub the member for Lilley the Icarus of economics—except that Icarus at least made it off the ground.
The coalition government has realised more than $2 billion in savings in just two repeal days—more than double our savings target and enough money to build hospitals, to build schools, to give a pension increase or to help pay off a tiny fraction of the economic chasm left by those opposite. Frankly, listening to the other side of the chamber attempting to blame-shift is becoming as trite and transparent as the emperor's new clothes. The coalition government would prefer to spend money on those things that enhance the lives and experiences of Australians, yet we remain hobbled by a debt not of our making.
Despite the economic shambles we inherited, the coalition is governing for all Australians, not just the vested interests of Labor and its union puppeteers. I urge those opposite to remove the puppeteer's arm from the back of their shirts and support this bill for the good of Australia—to free up business to spend more time on creating wealth and jobs and to save government a significant amount of money. I congratulate the member for Kooyong on this bill and for the significant savings it will make in time and money, savings which will in turn boost productivity. I commend this bill to the House.
I do not know why the member for Ryan is in here crowing about the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and its related bills. I was not going to respond to her comments, but since she made some insensitive car crash analogies, I think it is appropriate to remind her about the extra $5.1 million in compliance costs for business that this government has just added with its new petrol tax arrangements. These are the small businesses—the franchisees—for whom the coalition claim to be reducing red tape. They have now imposed extra red tape on every service station in my electorate. My electorate is located in Western Sydney where, contrary to the Treasurer's understanding, we rely on cars—all of us. In some suburbs where public transport is at a premium or nonexistent, there are households with two cars in the double garage and two more on the driveway. If I were the member for Ryan, I would not come in here and crow about this bill when her government has today added to the compliance costs of hundreds of small businesses and franchisees, including those in her own electorate.
I am very pleased to continue my tradition of appearances in debates on statute stocktakes and other spent legislation repeal instruments. Back in the day, there would only ever be one or two speakers on these bills. How delightful to see that we have so many people listed to speak on these bills today. Because I am a former lawyer with a deep interest in statutory interpretation and administrative law principles, I always try to make these debates interesting and have provided some wide-ranging comments in the past. Members might like to cast their minds back to, for example, the debate on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012, in which I recalled an Irish stocktake where they repealed thousands of pieces of legislation. Their review identified a staggering 63,000 statutes as spent legislation or statutes that should be repealed. I discussed the development of Hong Kong competition law. My gem was 'why commas matter'. There was a very interesting case from 2006, Rogers Communications v Bell Alliant, where a comma made the difference in a contract dispute worth a large amount of money. I had the opportunity to comment on High Court appointments. To my great delight, on one occasion the now Minister for Communications commented that 'such bills do not elicit great oratory' but that my contribution had been an exception. You take compliments where you can get them!
Speaking of great oratory, just to be instructive about what we are dealing with here today I want to quote not myself but someone else who has spoken on similar bills that have come before the House previously:
This stocktake bill, being the seventh since 1934, forms part of an ongoing process to clean up the statute book by repealing legislation that is simply redundant. That is all it does: repeal 84 old annual appropriations acts, as has been done for appropriation acts from 1901 to 1999 … the current stocktake bill is not a controversial bill by any stretch of the imagination; it is simply housekeeping …
While this bill is worthwhile and we support the nature of the bill and the removal of those acts from the statute law, again this is tidying up and housekeeping. This bill does not make any changes with regard to the easing of regulatory burden on business as suggested in explanatory memorandum. It can hardly be described as a feature of a meaningful deregulation agenda to remove some appropriations acts that applied over three years some 20 years ago. Things from 20 years ago are some of the things we are tidying up.
They are very true words—it was a great speech and I have taken the opportunity to read it. It was made by the member for Wright on 29 May 2013. We can apply the words of the member for Wright here today, and I thank him for bringing these thoughts to my attention on a previous occasion. He is spot on when it comes to what these housekeeping bills actually are.
I would like to focus on some of the specific elements of schedule 2 of the legislation, dealing with the communications sphere—specifically the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications talk about some of these provisions and I too would like to pick up on some of them. Part 2 of the amending legislation deals with repealing certain consultation requirements before certain legislative instruments are made—removing what are called amendments relating to consultation requirements in the Broadcasting Services Act, and also the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and the RadComms Act. I understand from the EM and from the bill itself that this is because the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 contains, in part 3, section 17, a requirement that rule makers should consult before making legislative instruments. There are related provisions dealing with circumstances where consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate and also consequences of the failure to consult.
Whilst I understand the legislative intent is that we already have the Legislative Instruments Act which contains those provisions, and therefore there is no need for duplication in those specific communications related pieces of legislation, I want to question from a practitioner's point of view whether that is desirable. I am happy to stand corrected if this is indeed a precedent in other pieces of legislation that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the drafters have recommended, but I did have a cursory overview about whether such repeal is commonplace and I could not see anything to support that. As I said, I am happy to stand corrected. I would have thought that one of the golden rules of statutory interpretation was that you should be able to pick up a piece of legislation and read it on its own without having to go to other instruments or other pieces of legislation to deal with very particular aspects of that specific provision. I do not see, in this proposed amendment, that there is going to be, for example, a box with a note saying, 'For consultation requirements refer to the Legislative Instruments Act, part 3, section 17.' I would have thought that, in light of our emphasis on plain English drafting, that would have been something that was desirable. It is not too hard to read a piece of legislation—and you should always, of course, have the Acts Interpretation Act next to you—but if you have to have a third act next to you, just in case, I wonder whether that will affect the way the bill is interpreted in everyday legal practice and in everyday regulatory practice, not only by the industry but by practitioners themselves. I note the comments from the government that this is not a reduction in consultation requirements but I do query how it is to be read and, seriously, whether it would be desirable for there to be a reference to consultation provisions being in the Legislative Instruments Act. To give this a bit of strength from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, I did quote them in a contribution on 28 May last year:
The Office of Parliamentary Counsel states some of the drivers of complexity in legislation and give some common examples …
Those examples include:
a tendency to respond to events with legislative changes even when legislation is not necessary to address the issues …
I do not know whether this was a specific item the industry said needed to be taken out, but the point I make is that this could end up being more complicated in practice for practitioners to deal with because all those provisions are removed from those three primary acts and now we simply have a reference—not even a reference, as far as I can see—to the Legislative Instruments Act.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned changes to the Do Not Call Register which are part of the deregulation agenda. ACCAN's media release of today says that ACCAN welcomed indefinite registrations on the Do Not Call Register. I am sure that all my colleagues here are well aware that the issue of unsolicited telemarketing by any electronic means is by and large not welcome. OIAC research, that it appears from the release was commissioned by ACCAN, found that only two per cent of survey respondents indicated that they enjoyed receiving unsolicited marketing information. Of course they love hearing from us!
On this point I draw the House's attention to a suggestion which I think has merit and I know has been considered elsewhere by the member for Bowman, which I noted in the press recently—and that is the notion of adding small businesses to the Do Not Call Register. My electorate office has a number which obviously used to belong to a small business, because just about every day we receive calls from the same marketing company. I can see that the member for Deakin shares my pain. I would have thought that this would be a sensible measure. I mention it quite seriously to suggest that, when we do look at this particular provision, is there a reason why we cannot consider having small businesses opt in to the register if they think that is going to be of benefit to them? We are talking about productivity when we talk about reducing regulatory burdens. As everyone here I think would know, one regulatory burden and something that affects productivity is if your staff are constantly being interrupted to do things that are not productive.
Some of the substantive provisions in these amendments go to part 15 of the Broadcasting Services Act, which deals with special provisions for retransmission of programs. Part of the amendments deal with the fact—I know the member for Lingiari will be interested in this—that NITV, National Indigenous Television Ltd, is now part of the SBS family; it has been for a little while. I think the portfolio budget statement for Communications provides a very good summary:
As part of the SBS family, the National Indigenous Television service (NITV) is broadcast free-to-air with national coverage …
Isn't that a great thing, member for Lingiari?
It is fantastic.
It continues:
… including through the Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) service. NITV is an important platform for the celebration of the unique languages and culture of Indigenous Australians, produced by Indigenous Australians, and now available to every Australian household.
The reason I mention this is in the context of not only NITV but also the future of community television in this country. As the CTV sector recently found out, the minister has determined that they will be moved online—that is the platform for them. The reality is—and this is what the sector is saying as well—that there is an acceptance that that is where they need to go, but to be rushed into it without the amount of preparation and support they need is a very detrimental thing. That is not specifically why I raise this.
One of the biggest gripes that the CTV sector has is this apparent obsession with ratings as the only indicia of the value of their content. As the sector pointed out, there are many networks with shows that have under 6,000 viewer ratings points. Unfortunately, some NITV programs regularly feature in those low ratings—things like SARL All Stars Carnival, Maori TV's Native Affairsand NITV News Week In Review. A lot of these end up rating lower than the threshold at which some in this place think should be the threshold of support. But no-one would be suggesting, would they, member for Lingiari, that that is the sole criterion by which you should judge the value of any programs?
You would think not.
Indeed, you would think not.
We need to be very careful when we rush in to repeal. Remember the last regulatory repeal day. On 19 March this year the parliamentary secretary came in and commended to the House repealing the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. We know how important that is. Subsequently, as Labor had called for, we had committee recommendations on this very issue, saying that, at a time when we need to make sure we have proper oversight of these laws for the benefit of our citizens, we need to ensure that the monitor remains. I put that out there just as a final warning of the dangers of rushing into these kinds of things.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. In particular I want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, for the outstanding work they have done in pushing forward our second red-tape repeal day.
We have already taken significant steps towards repealing red tape for Australian businesses and individuals with our first red-tape repeal day. We made a commitment prior to the election to hold regular repeal days, because we have always believed that by getting off the back of business we assist them in getting on with what they do best, and one of the things they do best is creating jobs in this economy. Removing outdated and unnecessary regulation is something that many parties in opposition propose. They promise to do it should they be elected. However, it is only this government which is getting on with the job of actually reducing the regulatory burden now that we are in government.
The Labor Party are a classic example of this. Before the election in 2007, under former Prime Minister Rudd, they committed to a policy of one-in one-out when it comes to regulation. The small business minister at the time, the Hon. Craig Emerson, even promised to take 'a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that is strangling small businesses'. However, talk is cheap. We know that under the Labor Party in those six years, more than 21,000 new regulations were introduced. So much for the one-in one-out policy. So much for taking a big pair of scissors to red tape. It would be laughable if it were not so serious.
We stand in contrast to the false rhetoric of those opposite. We are not changing department names or making glib statements; we are actually doing what the former minister said: we are taking a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that strangles small business. The reason for this is that the coalition believes that reducing red tape is going to be one of the most important elements of driving economic growth. And we do not want economic growth for economic growth's sake. But improving the ability for our economy to grow will improve the lives of our citizens and create more jobs. It will hopefully mean people can fulfil their lives in the way they want.
Unfortunately, in 2014 Australia was ranked 124th out of 148 countries for the burden of government regulation in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index. The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation and associated compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. Today, for the second time, we seek to repeal that lamentable legacy. This repeal day removes almost 1,000 pieces of regulation and more than 7,200 pages of legislation. This follows up from the work down in March, when the government removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation, which delivered over $700 million worth of compliance cost benefits. Together with today's repeal day, this will lead to a total net deregulatory saving of over $2.1 billion, an important achievement for job creation in Australia.
Already, we have made big steps. We now require cabinet submissions proposing legislative changes go through a regulatory impact process, something the Labor Party in government abandoned. We have established designated deregulation units within ministers' departments and, where appropriate, linking the remuneration of senior members of the Public Service to their performance in reducing red and green tape.
In addition to all those changes, and that is only a few, we are also seeking to eliminate the extensive duplication and regulatory overlap that exists between different layers of government, particularly between federal and state regulation. In my electorate of Deakin, I constantly hear the cry from businesses and individuals that they have to meet, in many cases, competing regulatory requirements at a state and federal level, and it is infuriating. It strangles innovation and entrepreneurship, and that is why this is so important.
Another key way in which we will be removing red tape will be by streamlining and improving the regulatory obligations and reporting methods. There will be $88 million a year in compliance cost savings, including with respect to the Australian Taxation Office, Medicare and Centrelink. Something I have heard about constantly in the last few weeks is that five million Australians have created their myGov account. I have been getting extraordinary feedback on that.
I am going to end my contribution early to enable other speakers to speak on this omnibus repeal bill. Understandably, as a government, we are very keen to all have a say here, because this will be the future for driving economic growth in this country, not economic growth for its own sake but economic growth for the sake of the lives of our citizens and improving jobs.
Now that Parliamentary Secretary Frydenberg is in the chamber, I want to congratulate him again for driving this process. I have business men and women in Deakin who shake my hand and say, 'Please thank the parliamentary secretary for driving these changes.' I commend the bills to the House.
Former Prime Minister John Howard has spoken about the issues that shaped him to get into politics and one of the chief ones was the impact of regulation on service stations. His parents, former Prime Minister Howard has written, felt that the Labor government maintained wartime petrol rationing for too long and they were frustrated by regulations that applied to local petrol stations from local councils. As John Howard once put it: 'What happened was my father had a garage near Dulwich Hill station and he got an edict from Marrickville council to remove the bowsers on the kerb. It accelerated a downward spiral for him and I guess it was something that helped to politicise me in the direction of profound sympathy for small business.'
One can only imagine what Mr Howard would make of a decision which sees the nation's 6,300 petrol stations hit with a compliance bill for $5.1 million for the privilege of collecting the Abbott government's new petrol tax. It is extraordinary that the so-called parties of Menzies has cast off so much of the values that Menzies stood for and is now rebuking the Howard legacy. What does the Liberal Party stand for any longer if it does not stand for the party of John Howard, if it is willing to spit in the eye of petrol station owners and slug them with new, unnecessary regulations? On the very day we are here talking about red tape, this is a government putting more red tape on to petrol station owners. You can just imagine John Howard shaking his head, 'First, they have undone the freeze in fuel indexation and then they are adding red tape to 6,300 small businesses.'
The government claims that the red tape measures are necessary and significant. And they are right, it is just that the necessary ones are trivial while the significant ones are unfair. Let me start with the trivia. Having crowed about the benefits of its first repeal day back in March, the government failed to tell the Australian people that that first red tape repeal day included 39 individual amendments changing the name 'electronic mail' to 'email'—difficult to see how that makes life easier for any Australian business—and hundreds of amendments adjusting spelling, grammar and punctuation.
To have a day on which you remove spelling mistakes from the statute books is like saying we are going to have a 'national showing up for work and having a cup of tea day'. It is just the regular business of government to clean-up the statute books and it is exactly what Labor did during our time in office, without the preening and the crowing that has accompanied the exercise from the coalition.
The first red tape repeal day encompassed the repeal of such noted business obstacles as the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1927, the Lighthouses Act 1949 and the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1969. The coalition crowed about the fact that it was removing a raft of amending acts, failing to tell Australians that an amending act ceases to take effect immediately after it has amended the principal act.
As my Senate colleague Senator Ludwig has recently discovered, the government set up teams at a cost of millions of dollars through the Australian Public Service in order to add to its preening exercise. The Treasury team cost $2.1 million. The teams based in the industry and social security departments cost around $700,000 a year. All of that is so the government can have a biannual preening exercise about simply doing its job. When we were in office, Labor removed over 16,000 redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments. We did not declare a 'war on bad punctuation'; we just figured that fixing typos is part of the work of good government.
Then there are the important reforms that the government is removing under the guise of red tape repeal. They attempt to gut Labor's future of financial advice consumer protection reforms, reforms that were backed by organisations such as Choice and National Seniors. These consumer protections were put in place in the wake of collapses such as Trio Capital and Storm Financial—and the minister at the table might chuckle, but these were crises that saw thousands of Australians lose their life savings and, in some cases, end up in debt, as a result of bad financial advice. That is why Labor put in those financial advice protections; not to impose additional red tape, but to ensure that older Australians are not scammed out of their life savings.
The government too is trying to kill off the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission was set up to protect Australians from door-to-door scammers. Thankfully, there are relatively few such scammers, but those who exist are in fear of an organisation which allows householders to check up on whether a charity is legit. It allows someone to type in the details onto the acnc.gov.au website and quickly check whether the person at the door is a dodgy scammer or a legitimate charity.
We believe that transparency is appropriate in the sector and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is delivering for charities. That is why four out of five charities support the charities commission, a figure which has remained unchanged in the year since the Abbott government has been in office. If the Abbott government's campaign against the charities commission had worked, you would think that charities might be less supportive. But actually this is the rare case of a regulator backed by its sector. What share of charities believe that charities regulation should return to the Australian Taxation Office? Just one in 20. Nineteen out of 20 Australian charities do not support the return of charities regulation to the tax office.
So, where Parliamentary Secretary Frydenberg might see red tape, we see measures that stop Aussies from being ripped off by dodgy financial advisers and unethical charity scammers. We believe that we need to have an appropriate level of regulation. What the coalition will not tell you about is the 690 new regulations they put in place since the last red tape repeal day. For a government that says it is declaring war on red tape, it certainly seems to be waving the white flag.
Since the first red tape repeal day, some of the regulations that have been brought in include: the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Warlike Service) Determination 2014 (No. 4); the National Health (Botulinum Toxin Program) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 2); the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determination No. 15 of 2014; the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Amendment (Notification of Decisions and Other Measures) Direction 2014; the Broadcasting Services (Licensee Audit Exemption) Instrument 2014; the Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2014 (No. 7); the Therapeutic Goods (Listing) Notice 2014 (No. 6); the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) (Warlike Service – Operation OKRA) Determination 2014; the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transfer of Industry Assets and Liabilities) Declaration 2014.
I could go on, but I have merely listed one-seventieth of the new regulations put onto the statute books by this government between their so-called regulation repeal day No. 1 and No. 2. A government that is declaring war on red tape is littering the statute books with new regulations. How hypocritical is that? The government claims to be getting rid of regulations but instead it is passing hundreds of them. Regulations are being passed at a rate of three or four a day since red tape repeal day No. 1 under this government; that is what they will not tell you on red tape repeal day No. 2. This is a stunt, pure and simple.
The charities commission has received significant support. I spoke before about the support it has from the sector. And the charities commission is reducing the regulatory burden on Australian charities. I stood up with Andrew Barr in the ACT and Gail Gago in South Australia. Both represent sensible governments which recognise that the charities commission can reduce regulatory reporting duplication for Australian charities.
In both those Labor jurisdictions we have governments keen to reduce the reporting burden on Australia's charities, by working with the charities commission. And yet governments in coalition-run states and territories have been unwilling to work with the charities commission.
This government needs to stop declaring a war on an organisation overwhelmingly backed by charities. That is not just my view; Ernst & Young has noted in a report on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission:
A core component of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission's reporting framework and efforts around reducing red tape is the 'report once, use often' principle. This principle is consistent with recommendations issued by the Productivity Commission, the National Commission of Audit, the Australian National Audit Office, the Treasury and the Department of Finance.
Serious reform-minded organisations take the view, as charities do, that the charities commission is cutting red tape and that abolishing the charities commission would increase the paperwork burden on Australian charities.
The government has got it wrong. Minister Andrews's only argument for abolishing the commission has been debunked by this Ernst & Young report and it has also been debunked by independent submissions. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has said:
We understand the government has made a commitment to abolish the ACNC. While we do not agree with this approach, we would strongly encourage the government to maintain elements of the ACNC that were delivering improved outcomes for the sector.
It has noted the 'light touch' regulation that is embodied in the charities commission, the value of a charities register that provides valuable information for a range of stakeholders, the central reporting mechanism and the harmonisation across jurisdictions.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors supports keeping the charities commission. The Queensland Law Society, in a detailed submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, has discussed the flaws in the regulatory impact statement for the government's attempt to repeal the charities commission. It has described the regulatory impact statements for that repeal bill as being:
Less than rigorous, and not meeting the usually high standards and disciplines of the Commonwealth legislative process.
The Queensland Law Society have noted a claim in the regulatory impact statement that the ACNC repeal is said to give effect to a government election promise, but have said:
We can find no direct reference to such a promise in the Coalition's formal election platform 1 and it was not included as a policy commitment in the Coalition's election costings.
The Queensland Law Society further say that the regulatory impact statement states:
… 21,000 unincorporated charities are required to report to the ACNC where they previously were outside a regulatory framework. This appears not to take into account that these charities are already subject to federal regulation which is fragmented and uncoordinated.
And goes on to note that the critique of the charities commission for not becoming a reporting point 'fails to acknowledge the progress made in setting up a framework for streamlined reporting in the ACNC's first 15 months.'
They also note the speed with which the charities commission has managed to register charities—exceeding the 85 per cent benchmark within 28 days with a 95.6 per cent success rate.
The charities commission is doing good work to reduce the reporting burden on Australian charities. Australians benefit from the charities commission and from financial advice protection. The removal of extraneous hyphens and commas should not be the subject of a bill before the House and crowing by the government.
Cutting red tape matters. Overregulation hinders productivity, deters investment, stifles innovation and costs jobs. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and two related bills, knowing that this is an important day for Australians and Australian businesses. Today we erase 7,200 pages of regulations from the statute books. This is in addition to our first repeal day where we removed more than 10,000 pieces of legislation and over 50,000 pages of regulations. This year alone the government has announced more than 400 individual reduction measures resulting in exceeding our initial $1 billion compliance saving target and achieving savings of over $2 billion. This is a significant achievement.
By identifying and removing red tape which adds financial burden without delivering benefit we boost our nation's competitiveness to help create jobs and cut the costs of business. We are determined to ensure that interaction with government for individuals and businesses is less complex, less costly and more time efficient. Labor talked big on cutting red tape, with symbolic gestures such as adding 'deregulation' to the title of the Department of Finance. They promised a one-end one-out rule for regulation. History instead shows that, after six years, the former Labor government added 21,000 new regulations. In contrast, in just over 12 months, this government has not only exceeded our target in cutting red tape and compliance costs but also achieved savings of over $2 billion.
We have set about changing the regulation culture within government. This government is taking this task seriously. Our senior ministers have established advisory councils on regulation, and every federal department has created a deregulation unit to calculate the cost of complying with regulations administered by the department and its agencies. Further, regulatory impact statements are required for cabinet submissions, to ensure that the cost of regulation is weighed against its benefits. Deregulation will be a standing item on the COAG agenda, to enable federal and state governments to cut duplication and overregulation.
We are working to improve the quality of consultation between the government and those who will be affected by any new regulations. It is only fair that a robust discussion occurs when government proposes new regulations that adversely impact on how individuals go about their lives or their business. Furthermore, we will also ensure rigorous and mandatory post-implementation reviews to determine the effectiveness of new regulations. If it is determined that regulations no longer effectively meet their purpose repeal will be considered. For individuals and businesses dealing with government departments and agencies, this news is most welcome.
The cost of compliance is a major barrier to growth. The average Australian business deals with eight regulators in a given year. Businesses spend close to four per cent of their total annual expenditure on complying with regulatory requirements and spend approximately 19 hours a week on compliance related activities. This impacts businesses' capacity to grow and drive job creation.
In an electorates such as Dobell small-business operators are the engine room of our economy and they deserve support from government in order to grow. Many of the businesses I have spoken to in Dobell constantly tell me about the burden of compliance. An estimated 447,000 small businesses will benefit from a reduced tax compliance burden, with administrative changes to GST and pay as you go reporting. Businesses with no payable GST will no longer be required to lodge a business activity statement, and this represents compliance savings for small business in the vicinity of $76 million.
One of Dobell's largest growing industries is the aged care sector. Repeal changes will mean aged care providers will no longer be required to notify the Department of Social Services of staff changes unless it materially affects the provider's suitability to provide care. The Department of Social Services has estimated that this will lead to an annual saving of $1.16 million in compliance costs. Such measures are positively contributing to a stronger and more prosperous economy.
Our Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda is promoting lower costs and better skills. Central to this renewed focus is deregulation and reducing red tape, with the guiding principle that if a system, service or product is approved under the trusted international standard, then Australian regulators should not impose additional requirements without a demonstrable reason to do so. The Prime Minister recently advised the House of our success with his approach. The Therapeutic Goods Administration has advised Cochlear, the makers of the bionic ear, that its products are now eligible to use European Union certification. This decision streamline certification will enable Australian consumers to have access to the latest devices, sometimes up to a year earlier than previously anticipated.
Individuals are also benefiting from our deregulation agenda as we minimise and simplify interaction with government. The creation of MyGov has seen more than five million Australians establish accounts to access government services, including the ATO, Medicare, Centrelink, Child Support, Veterans' Affairs and the NDIS. This has seen an annual compliance cost saving of $88 million. MyTax, which is linked with MyGov, will save close to $160 million each year while assisting 1.4 million Australians by pre-populating tax returns.
This government is helping more Australians find and keep a job by reducing the time spent by job service agencies dealing with red tape. This will be achieved by removing the requirement for job service providers to collect extensive evidence about a job seeker who finds work, because this information is ready collected by the Department of Human Services. Similar changes will be extended to Australian Apprenticeship Support Network providers, who will no longer have to maintain over three million paper files. Furthermore, the Department of Employment estimate this will lead to an annual saving of $24.7 million in compliance costs.
For the households of Dobell and throughout Australia we are also introducing common-sense reforms, making dealing with government easier. We are changing the length of registration on the Do Not Call Register to an indefinite period, meeting more than 9.2 million individuals and families will no longer be required to reregister their phone and fax numbers.
Local clubs and organisations registered as a company limited by guarantee, with less than $1 million in revenue, will no longer require an auditor. Our deregulation and red tape reduction goals do not end with today's repeal day. There will be more to come in the future, because their remains so much more to be done. It is important that we continue to talk with individuals, families and businesses to identify where we can further reduce the compliance burden. As I have often said, government does not create jobs, business creates jobs. As such, it is important that the government provides a sufficient regulatory presence without restricting productivity and growth.
I commend the work of the parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg, and congratulate him on his commitment on behalf of this government to our deregulation agenda. I commend this bill to the House.
I was not going to speak on this bill, because I find these red tape repeal days or stunts of the government to basically be a sham. They are nothing but cheap tricks trying to distract the community. Quite often the bills that we have before us deal with minor things like fixing grammar and spelling, yet they claim that these changes are making massive savings to the budget. This particular red tape repeal charade only contains $1.8 million in savings of the total $2.33 billion that they are claiming. What a charade—to guillotine, to gag other debate on legislation to rush on a bill which is about correcting minor grammar, spelling and punctuation within existing bills and legislation.
So, why am I speaking? Because what has been revealed in these documents is the further extent of the ambush that this government has had in the last 24 hours in relation to increasing the petrol tax. It is an ambush on Australian motorists, in particular an ambush on regional families, because we all know that if you live in the regions you spend more on petrol because you have further to drive. In the government's own documents that we are debating today it is revealed that the impact of the petrol tax ambush is even wider, with every petrol station now being slugged an extra $800 a year in new compliance costs to collect tax for this government. I thought this bill was about reducing compliance and red tape, yet this government is whacking a further tax, slugging compliance costs, on every petrol station, including many of those in regional Victoria. According to its own documents this government will hit the nation's 6,300 petrol stations with a compliance cost of $5.1 million. They will pay for the privilege of collecting this government's increased petrol tax. There is little doubt that this increased compliance cost will be passed on to motorists when they fill up at the bowser—and by 'motorists' we mean mums and dads, we mean pensioners, we mean small businesses. We mean everybody that needs a car or truck that relies on regular petrol to get from A to B.
This Prime Minister is addicted to taxing Australians. There is just no other way to go about it. Quite often, as we are seeing, rather than debating it properly in this House and in the Senate, they are simply ambushing the Australian people. This new tax increase to the petrol stations is not the only problem that we are seeing with their whole approach to petrol. As I have said, the increase in the petrol tax will hit local motorists. The fuel excise will mean that central Victorians and regional Australians will pay more for their petrol.
And it comes from a government that also tries to claim that poor people do not drive cars or drive far. Let's leave for a moment that some of our poorest households struggle in their pay cycle to put money in the car to get from A to B when it gets to day 11 or day 12 in their pay cycle. Let's leave for a moment the fact that for many regional Australians the car is the only way that they can get from A to B. It is the only transport available, because we do not have public transport in large chunks of regional Australia. Let's also leave for a moment that this statement by the Treasurer is not only elitist but somewhat patronising. Poor people do not drive cars? Isn't it a problem if people cannot afford the very basics in life? Hasn't this government failed? Hasn't the Treasurer failed to support the most vulnerable people if they cannot put petrol in their car to get from A to B, particularly when it comes to regional Australia and regional MPs? They should be standing up and speaking against the changes to petrol. They should be speaking against the increases to the petrol tax—increases which are in this red tape repeal day hitting petrol stations—because that would just be a further increase to motorists. Petrol stations will simply pass that on.
How do we know that low-income households pay more for petrol than those on higher incomes? It comes down to percentage. We need to talk about the percentage of income that low-income households spend each year on the basics such as petrol.
Order! Member for Bendigo, whilst we have allowed a very broad-ranging debate in this House on this amendment, she might consider the amendment before the House.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. My comments relate to page 5 of the government's October 2014 red tape repeal documents, table 1c, the summary of key regulatory costs reported or announced since September 2013, the line item which talks about the resuming of the indexation of the fuel excise to the consumer price index. So I am speaking to the documents which are being talked about in relation to these bills. I have just outlined the fuel excise to consumer price index increase, what it will cost petrol stations and also what it will cost Victorian motorists, particularly those on low incomes.
The fuel excise increase will in fact hit low-income earners the hardest. The percentage of their household income spent on petrol will increase due to the extra that they will have to pay. Lower income groups tend to live in the outer suburbs and regional areas because housing is more affordable. As a result, however, their transport costs will increase. This is kind of simple mathematics; if you live further out because it is cheaper, it is only natural to assume that you will have to pay more to get into town to get to work, to drop your children off at school or to get around. Infrastructure has not caught up with these areas yet. The public transport has not been built or the state or federal governments have no plan to build the public transport so that these households and families have the opportunity to have a viable public transport option. All they can do is rely on their car, and that is the problem when this government increases the excise on petrol. It hits those in the outer suburbs and the regional people disproportionately. It hits them the hardest because they do not have the opportunity to take public transport.
The public transport debate is something that we have seen this government turn a blind eye to. They are not interested in doing their bit to invest in public transport—
I am really struggling with your presentation on this red tape repeal bill as to where you are headed with this with regard to relevance to the bill. You might consider that in the rest of your address.
Thank you. I remind the Deputy Speaker that I am speaking in relation to the resumption of indexation of the fuel excise to the consumer price index, which is part of the government's own October 2014 red tape repeal documents. These are the documents that the government is bringing before the House and contain their great charade around red tape repeal. Perhaps the Speaker and members of the government do not like me talking about the fuel excise because of the impact that it will have on regional communities. If they have their own Facebook pages, they have probably exploded in outrage—like my page has in the last 24 hours—at the increase of the fuel excise and how that is going to impact on our families.
Fuel prices are high in regional Victoria, higher in regional Australia, which is—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to relevance. This bill is talking about 256 regulations being repealed. If you could draw the member's attention to those regulations and her capacity to talk about those regulations that are being repealed today.
On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Bendigo has clearly indicated how she is speaking with relevance to the repeal day bill and associated documents. This has been a very wide-ranging debate and the member for Bendigo is speaking in order.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to standing order 75, on relevance or tedious repetition. You have drawn the member's attention to her relevance to this bill on two occasions and she continues to go on about nothing at all. Standing order 75 prevents irrelevance or tedious repetition of the same point.
I do not think there is a point of order there. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening to the points of order as they were raised. When these amendments were moved, the parliamentary secretary who introduced them referred to the full range of all issues relating to deregulation. Something in the order of 80 per cent of the speech given by the parliamentary secretary had nothing to do with the bills before the House. At no point—
The Manager of Opposition Business, what is your point of order?
My point of order is on relevance and the breadth of this debate. That was established by the parliamentary secretary at the beginning of the debate. If members of the government want to change the rules midway through then those relevance rules which were not applied—with no points of order at all—to the parliamentary secretary's introduction will change the nature of this debate for the rest of today.
The bills I am referring to today are the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014. Comments made by previous speakers also outline clearly that these particular bills before us—and today's entire charade around red tape repeal day—does in fact relate to the resumption of indexation of the fuel excise in line with the consumer price index.
As I continue to repeat, the government has put the increase in the fuel excise back on the table. Yes, they are doing it in a sneaky way. They have put it into their red tape repeal documents; they have listed it here in their red tape repeal documents. They do not want to debate this issue. They do not want the Senate to have the opportunity to talk about increasing petrol tax because they know how much of a stinker it is in regional Victoria. It is an absolute stinker to be increasing petrol prices. It hits small business, it hits our farmers and it hits our families. That is what is before us today. It exposes how this government likes to hide behind its own red tape. It likes to create this charade. Contained in their red tape repeal day bill is the fact they are increasing compliance costs for petrol stations. That is what I have tried to highlight in this speech. With their charade of, 'We're going to repeal red tape; we're going to make it easier for business', they are making it harder for petrol stations. Through this particular measure they are making every single petrol station become a tax collector for this government.
This is what their red tape repeal day is all about—it is all about smokescreens and increasing pressure on families. Rather than being up-front about it, whether before the election or now, this government is trying to ambush the Australian people. Petrol costs are a big issue. They are a very big issue to people in the country and in 12 days time the price of petrol for regional Australians will increase.
Guess what is also going to happen in 12 days time? Prepolls for the Victorian state election will also happen. Perhaps that is why this government does not want to talk about what is really going on and why people do not like the increase to the petrol tax. People do not like the fact that this government will resume the indexation of the fuel excise in line with the consumer price index, a measure which is contained in this document. (Time expired)
I am very happy to speak to the amendment to the government's amendment bill, rather than speaking on any topic of my choosing and making the same point over and over for the same 15 minutes. I encourage the new member to read standing order 75(a). It was very generous of you, Deputy Speaker, not to use your power to have her discontinue her speech—
The member for Mitchell will address the bill.
which was completely irrelevant. We could open up a whole range of irrelevancies, including your performance in government—
Order! The member for Mitchell will address the bill before the House.
I am very happy to comply with the relevant standing orders, unlike members opposite. This amendment bill is extremely important. It is not a charade. It is not a sham. It is not a pretend bill. This is a real bill amending all of the different statutes which require a reduction in red tape in our society—and there are many. We heard from the previous government they did this as a matter of course. We have heard, from many speakers, that they did it secretly in many cases: 'This was just an ordinary day in the office for us—we came into parliament, we moved a bill and we changed spellings and deregulated by stealth.' It was so effective you never even saw it! That was the problem. It was so effective you never did see deregulation from the previous government. You never did hear about it; it was deregulation by stealth, the opposition would have us believe.
We know, of course, there is no such thing as deregulation by stealth. The previous government added enormous amounts of statutes and regulations to the bill—20,000 new acts and repeals—and that was a great addition to the burden of red tape on the Australian people. We do not accept the deregulation by stealth argument the opposition has put forward. We do not accept that this deregulation and removal of red tape is unnecessary in Australia today, because when you talk to businesses or people in the community, they are calling for many of the things that are in this amendment. They are saying: 'These are the things that are delaying our days, when we trying to get business done, when we are trying to employ people and trying to expand our business and its impact on the community.' These are the sorts of things that are taking up their time.
There are many good features you will find in this particular bill. In fact, this particular spring session is the second. I think the Manager of Opposition Business is about to pull a very big tactic because he is so frightened of deregulation. What have you got to hide, as an opposition, about deregulation? (Quorum formed) I am grateful to the Manager of Opposition Business for bringing in such an illustrious audience to hear about why the Abbott government is doing so much to cut red tape and cut regulations off Commonwealth statutes. I know that the members who have joined us are great advocates of deregulation and the government's deregulation agenda. Really, if the Manager of Opposition Business would spend as much time drafting questions—there is something coming up called question time—as he has mucking around tactically here, calling a brilliant House quorum on me, you might have a better standard of questions in question time. It is just a thought—not that I am trying to help over there. More time drafting questions is probably needed.
Talk about the bill!
The member for Mitchell will address the bill.
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I got awfully distracted by this whole affair. Back to the bill, the bill in question, the omnibus repeal bill, which I am very, very happy to address. This is part of the government's ongoing deregulation agenda, and it is important that twice a year we have deregulation. It is common in the United States of America, where many statutes and other laws will expire with people leaving office. They will expire automatically. They have many mechanisms to reduce and remove the amount of red tape, laws and regulation in America. However, here in Australia we have not had mechanisms like this that are regular, thorough, complete, that ensure that constantly we remove inactive legislation and regulation that is of no effect that brings the total net regulatory burden down.
Of course we know that the total regulatory reduction in savings for individuals, businesses and the not-for-profit sector will be something in the order of $2.1 billion. It is not about spelling, it is not about a few dollars and cents. It is about $2.1 billion of savings for the individuals, businesses and the not-for-profit sector. It is actually double the target that we have set. You will find in this bill in particular, as well as the repeals of redundant provisions in the acts that are going, the streamlining of many processes. We are also abolishing three bodies in this bill: the Fishing Industry Policy Council, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group and the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council. Getting rid of all these bodies federally—we do not know how many there are, we do not know what they do—is a good thing to do. It is good to downsize the role of government in our society.
On coming to office the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance asked, 'How many Commonwealth government bodies are there?' It sounds like a simple question; for anyone listening you would think there would be a simple answer. Maybe it would take a period of time to get an answer. How many Commonwealth government agencies does the Commonwealth government administer? The bottom line is that they cannot get a proper answer about how many bodies the Commonwealth government administers. That is how disorganised and how large the Commonwealth government has become: we cannot even identify the number of bodies that we are responsible for. So repealing these three bodies is yet another part, and we are going to be going through more government agencies to reduce the number of committees, bodies and things that we do not need; things that we do not need the government to be involved in or where there are duplicate services available at state level or duplicate services available at other layers of government.
We know, of course, that many of these things are duplicated at state level. The introduction of one-stop shops for environmental approvals is perhaps one of the biggest changes in the way our Commonwealth, our federation, does business in this country.
One of the most significant problems that we have had as a society has been the knock back of huge amounts of investment, including in states like South Australia, which lost a massive uranium mine because of the overregulation of state and federal governments. There is the time taken when you apply for environmental approvals. There are the multilayers of environmental approvals. There is the reluctance of certain governments to approve big projects, even though they are to the great benefit of their state or the Commonwealth. The one-stop-shop process will ensure that we have better and more streamlined approvals.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.
Last weekend in Tasmania, at Waddamana, there was a celebration to mark the 100th anniversary of Hydro Tasmania. In those over 100 years, Hydro Tasmania has grown to be Australia's largest renewable energy company. It now employs more than 1,000 people and has assets of more than $5 billion. It was the first power station in Tasmania and opened in 1916 at Waddamana.
Hydro Tasmania is a large renewable hydro scheme, with over 30 hydro-electric power stations and three wind farms. It is a major institution in my home state of Tasmania. But, like so many other things, Hydro Tasmania's growth and history is more than just about dams, constructions, power stations or electricity output. It is the story of the thousands of workers who toiled to build it and their families who thrived in remote communities right across Tasmania. This was most famously depicted in the novel titled The sound of one hand clapping by Tasmania's recent Booker Prize winner, Richard Flanagan.
Of course, it is difficult to talk about Hydro's history without mentioning one of the great political debates in Tasmania's history—the Franklin Dam. Whatever your opinion of this project, there is no doubt that the controversy surrounding the Franklin Dam and the subsequent legal battles over its construction had and will continue to have a significant impact on Australia's legal history for generations to come.
I congratulate Hydro Tasmania on its 100 years and the families involved in its construction and their children.
Earlier this year, the Beenleigh Theatre Group held the Beenleigh Festival of One Act Plays. The Beenleigh Theatre Group has brought hundreds of live productions to the Beenleigh community, including musical presentations, plays, revues and pantomimes. Since 1986 the Beenleigh Festival of One Act Plays has produced unique, never-before staged works. This year there was a resurgence in the number of local youth entries, as well as new volunteers coming on board.
I would like to thank festival coordinator, Roslyn Johnson, and all the members of the One Act Play Festival Committee, as well as the volunteers, as events like this would not be possible without their support.
I would also like to congratulate the Rotary Club of Loganholme, who had a very busy year with a number of activities, including the PCYC Car Show, the Logan City Charity Bike Ride, the Science and Engineering Challenge, the Pride of Workmanship and the many donations in kind to our local community.
In addition to these events and activities, the Rotary Club of Loganholme also assisted Loganholme State School with their Christmas Carols event. They joined with Logan and Beenleigh clubs in holding a Neighbourhood Day 'Picnic in the Park' at Shailer Pioneer Park. They were also involved in the running of Beenleigh Relay for Life, which was a huge success. The work that they do for our community is outstanding, and I would like to acknowledge the efforts of all the office bearers for their wonderful work over the past 12 months.
Today I have been contacted by the Patronato office in Oakleigh, in my electorate, by Sebastian Rustica, who has been doing an amazing job since 1980. Patronato provides free advice on Italian social security matters to members of the Italian community and is supported by the Italian government. The Patronato office in Oakleigh has been assisting the Italian community with queries around pension entitlements from Italy and also those relating to the Italo-Australian social security agreement between Italy and Australia that has been in place for 30 years. However, this is now under threat. I quote from a letter I received on this matter today, which states:
Part of the extreme measures proposed by the RENZI Government and currently awaiting Parliament approval, is a massive blow of 150 million Euros to the "PATRONA 77" which if passed by the Italian Parliament will translate into a loss of 6000 jobs and the inevitable closure of all Patronati Offices outside of Italy.
If that is the case the Australian Department of Human Services will have to pick up the pieces as Centrelink will have to assist all Italians currently receiving an Italian pension granted under the Italo-Australian Social Security Agreement.
My electorate of Chisholm, which is home to many who benefit from these services, will no longer be able to access them. Currently, 3,000 people a year go to the Oakleigh office. It is an invaluable community service. People who are involved in it, such as Tony Torsselo, know how well utilised it is. Tony is currently the Vice President Patronato Rai Uil Association of Oakleigh and President of the Don Bosco club, which I have been pleased to go to on many occasions. He knows how damaging this would be. He and Sebastian are asking people to come down to the Patronato office at 8 Station Street, Oakleigh, to sign the petition to stop this ridiculous closure of these valuable offices.
I rise to pay tribute to the Teesdale Primary School, which ran a very successful country fair last Friday night. Teesdale is 35 kilometres north-west of Geelong in the Corangamite electorate. The country fair was bustling with excitement, with students, their families and other members of the community gathering to celebrate the best of country living. There were rides, local produce stalls, great music and the iconic Dunny Dash.
It was my pleasure to judge competitions for the best decorated bike, the scariest scarecrow and the best decorated cupcake. Abi Jeffery and Holly Patterson took out first prizes for their beautifully decorated bikes, which were covered in ribbons and flowers. In the fierce battle for the best decorated cupcakes, the winners were Lily Smith for her sheep cupcakes, complete with tiny marshmallows for wool, and Vincent Weatherly for his impressive green train cupcakes. The Make a Scarecrow winners were Dan Carton and Wilaura Deneka.
Congratulations to all who contributed to this great event, particularly Principal Tony Gove and the President of the Parents and Friends Association, Kaylene Grigsby. On this beautiful balmy evening, the Teesdale community was at its very best.
I rise to alert the House to an urgent and continuing problem concerning human rights and industrial protections in Cambodia—a country with which Australia shares such a special history. In Hotham alone, we are home to 2,000 Cambodians, and the contribution that they make to spiritual, cultural and economic life in our local area is profound.
Australia has long played a role in joining the fight with Cambodians to help that proud nation transition to a peaceful democracy. The protection of industrial rights, freedom of association and the right to organise lie at the heart of a peaceful democracy. Today, in Cambodia, unions are being supressed by government forces.
Earlier this year, five garment workers were shot at and killed, and 23 people were arrested simply because they were protesting for fairer conditions and wages. The freedom to assemble has been banned. These actions are unconscionable and unacceptable and I want to say to working people in Cambodia: we care and we will continue to fight for your rights to be protected.
Yoeung khnom chhor chuap chea peatarakpeap chea mouy borng pauon srey pros khmer robas yoeung. Yoeung nung bantor kar prayut team tear sithi monus robos borng pauon. We are standing in solidarity with you, our Cambodian brothers and sisters and we will continue to fight for your right to organise.
I rise to pay tribute to an inspirational young Territory athlete who will compete on the world stage next week. My good friend and world champion, Tahnee Afuhaamango, who is a wonderful swimmer, is on her way to Mexico to compete in her fourth and final Down Syndrome World Swimming Championships.
For more than a decade Tahnee has represented the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia on the world stage. She has been such an inspiration to so many people. During her 14-year career she has won countless medals and has broken 18 world records. Eighteen world records is an amazing achievement. Career highlights include representing Australia at the world championships in Ireland, Portugal, Taiwan and Italy.
Tahnee has now made the very tough decision to retire from international swimming after this meet. I am extremely proud of Tahnee's achievements. She is a fine example of what can be achieved through commitment, determination and hard work.
On behalf of all Territorians, I wish to take this opportunity to wish Tahnee all the best. I know she will once again represent Australia and, indeed, the Northern Territory with pride and passion. As Tahnee prepares for the final chapter in her international career, I am urging everyone to send her a Herogram: a message of support. Please simply visit dssa.org.au and select 'Tahnee Afuhaamango' because she would love to hear from everyone.
This government should be condemned for their ambush on Australian motorists. Yesterday this government moved to increase petrol prices by increasing the fuel excise. This increase in petrol will hit regional Australia particularly hard. Petrol prices in regional Australia are already higher than they are in the metro areas—and why? There is lower population, meaning there are fewer outlets, meaning there is less competition. There are higher costs for transport and storage of fuel and there is less demand for convenience sales, which keep fuel prices low, and the location of outlets—whether they are on a highway or out further—have fewer customers. Quite frankly, people in the country pay more for fuel.
For example, on one Saturday in my electorate the petrol in Woodend was $1.50; the petrol in Kyneton, just up the road was $1.45; and the petrol in Bendigo, where the population is much higher and there is more competition, was $1.35. If you increase the fuel excise, it increases every time petrol increases. So if you have outlets that are charging $1.50 compared to $1.35 for fuel, people are paying more for petrol. They are paying more in excise.
This is this government's plan for the bush. They are simply increasing the cost of petrol and it disproportionately affects the bush. This government should be condemned for ambushing the Australian regional people.
Today there is change sweeping across my state of Tasmania. Today those in my electorate of Braddon are waking to the news of who will be granted the honour of representing them in local government, and there will be many, many new faces. While there are winners and there are losers, and ballots are still being counted today, the results are becoming clear.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the elected mayors of my electorate. Congratulations to Alderman Steve Martin, in the city of Devonport, for an overwhelming win; new mayor Duncan McFie in King Island; new mayor Peter Freshney in La Trobe; Robbie Walsh, re-elected as mayor in Waratah Wynyard; re-elected mayor Daryl Quillam in Circular Head; re-elected mayor Jane Bonde in the Central Coast; and a new mayor for the city of Burnie, Anita Dow.
As one of the three spheres of government in Australia, local government touches almost all areas of our day-to-day life as citizens whether we live in a city, town or small country area. The role of a councillor is, indeed, a really important one and possibly can hold the key to a successful, thriving community.
To the winners, I say congratulations. To those who did not win, thank you for standing. I say to all those who have now been elected—the re-elected and the newly elected councillors: you have a responsibility to work together, to accept that the citizens have spoken. This does not mean that there will not be rigorous debate, but it does mean that there is a group of elected councillors that are expected to work together for the benefit of their municipality.
Over the last few weekends I have had the pleasure of celebrating the diversity of my community of Lalor. I attended two Diwali events held in Werribee and Point Cook the weekend before last. Both showcased the great addition of the multifaith Indian cultures and traditions to our society.
Last Saturday I was very pleased to attend the National Mosque Open Day at the Virgin Mary Mosque in Tarneit. It was opened in 2004 and it proudly has members with origins including Africa, Pakistan, the Middle East, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Albania, India, Europe and Bangladesh. The open day was an opportunity for the greater community to visit, ask questions and engage with our local Muslim community.
After being welcomed by Sheik Isse Musse, Mohamed Masood and his wife Sithi Zhairi, I was fortunate to participate in a tour led by Ramzi Elsayed. It was wonderful to see how this community has embraced and contributed to my local area. Sarah Sabah and Sheik Ajward also conducted tours for the numerous visitors. I congratulate all the organisers of this event and those held across Australia. It really is a way for us to get to know one another and to see what is the same about us rather than stressing the differences.
I rise to share with the House a fantastic event within the electorate of Macquarie which occurred last week. I was most privileged and delighted to attend the Richmond RAAF base's Freedom of Entry to the City Parade last Thursday, 23 October, in Windsor, New South Wales. The event derives from an ancient tradition of Imperial Rome whereby victorious generals and their legions were granted special permission to enter the city to celebrate their triumphs in battle and to accord honour to their commander.
The RAAF base in Richmond has come to constitute an integral part of the Hawkesbury community. Our nation maintains some of the finest defence forces in the world and we are proud that the Hawkesbury hosts an essential defence force base in the centre of our community.
It was a privilege and a delight to be a part of the RAAF march through Windsor and to acknowledge once again the essential work our service men and women undertake and to celebrate as a community the fine tradition of defence force excellence that the Hawkesbury can be proud of.
With the increased importance of national security in the current international climate, it is important to recognise the extraordinary contribution our defence forces make to the lifestyle we enjoy in Australia. RAAF Base Richmond continues to make us proud, having delivered much-needed aid to refugees in the Middle East during the recent conflicts. I was privileged and most thankful for the opportunity to attend the march and be part of acknowledging and celebrating the valuable community contribution and Australian spirit of our defence forces. I also commend to the House the service men and women of the Richmond RAAF base and honour them for their tireless work and commitment. Thank you for a terrific event.
On Monday my colleague the member for Fremantle paid tribute to former WA Chief Justice David Malcolm. On that same day the Western Australian community farewelled this great jurist and community pillar at a ceremony in St George's Cathedral. I had a very personal reason for attending the service, as I was articled to David Malcolm QC, as he then was, at the very beginning of my legal career. He was a very generous and expansive principal who gave his clerks and his pupils every opportunity to learn at the side of a master the creative recrafting of precedent, the attention to detail of the evidence and the strategizing that underpins successful litigation.
He was a big man with a huge appetite for the law, community service and for life. He had many adventures, including working in Manila and Beirut for the World Bank during some very troubled times. For 18 years he led the Supreme Court with gravitas and vigour. I acknowledge his wife, Kaaren, and daughter, Manisha, who truly provided great fulfilment to his life.
I am very much looking forward to Saturday, 15 November. I will be in Ballina by the sea—a beautiful part of the world—for the prawn festival. This is the second year of the festival. Last year it attracted 18,000 people. This year we are expecting well in excess of 20,000 people. The catalyst for the festival last year was the 40th anniversary of the arrival of the Las Balsas rafts in Ballina after they crossed the Pacific Ocean from South America. There is a team organising this event, as with everything. It is led by founder and head organiser Nadia Elliot-Burgess. She also runs the local chamber of commerce in Ballina. She has boundless energy. This festival will be celebrating the laid-back Ballina lifestyle that brings together thousands of local residents and visitors from throughout the northern rivers and beyond.
I would like to name a few of the sponsors. These events cost a lot of money and without these sponsors it would not happen: the Ballina Chamber of Commerce, the Ballina Fair Shopping Centre, the Fishermen's Co-op, the Sydney Fish Market, the Macadamia Castle, Ballina Shire Council, Ballina RSL, the Ramada Hotel, North Coast TAFE, The Northern Star, Blue River Design, LJ Signs, Coates Hire, Tursa, Totally Workwear, eMedia Worx, Air T&G, Bunnings Warehouse, Prime 7, ZZZ, Coaster Kings and Essential Energy.
On Monday morning I, along with the member for Ryan and the member for Melbourne, met with Stephen Hodge and other cyclists from the Cycling Promotion Fund and the Heart Foundation who presented the financial incentives to ride to work survey 2014. As co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Better Cities we were meeting with them to recognise the work they do and also the importance of active transport options to building better cities and enabling better and healthier lives.
The survey was an initiative of the National Heart Foundation and the Cycling Promotion Fund. It involved surveying over 2,000 Australians. The results of the survey are compelling. For instance, more than 80 per cent of respondents supported the implementation of a financial incentive to get more people to ride to work. Three incentives were proposed: a direct subsidy, an indirect subsidy and a tax deduction. The direct subsidy was the clear winner, with two-thirds support. When asked whether they would like to cycle to work, more than one in three respondents said that they would. Close to 40 per cent of respondents indicated that they cycle for either fun or exercise, with more than half cycling at least once a month. Of the workers who cycle for fun or exercise, more than half would like to start cycling to work.
This survey shows that there is a hunger for support for cycling and cycling infrastructure. More people cycling means fewer cars on the road and more people getting exercise and getting healthier. I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues to meet these aspirations. I commend the report and its recommendations, which warrant further and detailed consideration.
Next Tuesday is the Melbourne Cup, the race that stops the nation, and many Australians will have their one and only bet for the year. Some will study the form, others will look for their favourite number or colours and others will have an omen bet. They might take a lead from some contemporary event that is related to a horse's name. This year there are six outstanding omen bets I can recommend.
First there is the P Moody trained Wish Come True. It certainly was a wish come true for Australian consumers, who are enjoying since the repeal of the carbon tax the biggest fall in electricity prices in our nation's history. Second there is Willing Foe from the Godolphin stable. Given the internal ruckus over the ALP leadership, the opposition leader certainly has a willing foe with the internal campaign to undermine him. Third is Like a Carousel, which is carrying just 50 kilos. We see Labor going round and around like a carousel continuing to advocate for the same failed policies on border protection. Fourth is the lightly raced galloper Au Revoir. Today it is spring repeal day with red tape being slashed, so it is au revoir, goodbye, farewell, to nearly 7,200 pages of unnecessary legislation and regulation. Fifthly is the group 1 winner My Ambivalent because 'ambivalence' accurately sums up the opposition leader's attitude to any credible economic policy. Finally is the four-year-old bay gelding Big Memory. The Australian public will have a big memory because it is going to take decades and decades to pay off the previous Labor government's debt.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving Australia, I was honoured to attend Surf Life Saving Australia's national awards of excellence to celebrate and pay tribute to some of our country's best and most heroic surf-lifesavers. With 167,000 members and 300 surf clubs throughout the country, it is our largest volunteer movement. Awards on the evening went to a number of clubs. Western Australia's Secret Harbour Surf Life Saving Club was a standout, receiving three of the major awards, including the prestigious Club of the Year Award, Lifesaver of the Year Award, which was won by Robert Bates, and Assessor of the Year Award, which went to Sharee Hart. South Narrabeen's Andy Cross was named the DHL volunteer of the year with more than 810 volunteer hours this year.
Those in attendance had their heart stolen by eight-year-old Zoe Jolley, who received a meritorious award for making an outstanding rescue in April this year. Swimming with her mother at Wild Cattle Creek, Zoe spotted another young girl in trouble, struggling to stay afloat in the water. Zoe put all of her nipper training into practice, paddled over to the other girl, kept her calm, and rescued her on her paddle board. The amazing thing about this story is that Zoe lives in Texas in the United States and was here in Australia with her father and her mother and took up nippers for that short period. Congratulations to Zoe.
I congratulate Surf Life Saving Australia on the event and thank all the volunteers for their tireless work on our beaches each summer.
It is spring in Adelaide and it is school fair season. Last weekend there were three school fairs held in my electorate. The Westbourne Park Primary School opened 28 August 1914. They are celebrating this year their centenary. They have had a number of famous old scholars, arguably the most famous of all is Robin Warren, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize for medicine and physiology. Rod and Lynn Hook have three generations of their family who have attended the school. There have been a number of centenary events held over the course of the year. There was an old scholars reunion with old scholars in their 90s attending, as did a lifelong friend of mine, Claire Leaker. The centenary fair was a fantastic event which I was able to attend with my family. I congratulate David Adams and fair organisers Danny Braddy on that.
The Craigburn Primary School fair was also well organised. I congratulate Candi Hinks and the fundraising raising committee, which were everywhere with their yellow T-shirts. I was able to help out with Sam Duluk on the sausage sizzle and that was a very successful event as well. Ben Francis, an old scholar of the school, spoke as did Lorraine Rosenberg, the Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga.
I rise today to acknowledge and congratulate a great if transient institution of Australian politics—the Rudd 2000 Twitter account. On 14 November 2013, an anonymous Twitter account tweeted #imagine Kevin Rudd never fired, still PM today. Fast forward to today, 3,000 tweets and 5,000 followers later, and the authors of this Twitter account, Scott Bridges and Stephen Owen, have now published a compendium of their work to raise funds for the office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
Politics is a serious business but I am sure that no Australian wants their politicians to take themselves too seriously. In this respect, Kevin 2000 provided an invaluable reality check to 'Ablo', 'Barnbully Juice', 'Emmo', 'Scot Moreson', 'Toney Abert' and, yes, 'Tim Wat'. My office and branch members derived enormous pleasure from the antics of my alter ego 'Tim Wat' and 'Wyat Roy'—so much joy that we launched our own Rudd 2000 memorabilia to raise funds for an asylum seeker charity in my own electorate, the West Welcome Wagon. We raised more than $800 for asylum seekers in my community off the back of a tweet from Scott and Stephen:
Tim Wat ride BMX past Wyat Roy office. You dead at little lunch he say.
In that way, Scott and Stephen made a practical contribution to some of the most vulnerable members in my community. So I say to the members in this House: buy this book, do a good deed and get it now before Ablo eat them all.
It is over 40 years now since the last person in Australia contracted polio. Indeed, it is hoped that polio will be eradicated from the globe within the next decade. I would like to speak today about the late-onset effects of polio. The organisation Polio Australia, of which I am very privileged to be one of the parliamentary patrons. Right across Australia now there are thousands of Australians who are in their older years who may have had a slight trace of polio in their younger days who are having the effects of polio now in later in life.
Quite often polio is misdiagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome or depression or some other disease. Quite often the misdiagnosis means that they miss out on treatment. So Polio Australia, which is largely a volunteer organisation, has been batting away for nearly a decade and today launched a magnificent book to help medical practitioners and sufferers of polio alike. Today I would bring like to bring to the House's attention that while polio is self this eradicated from Australia, people are still suffering the effects of polio and they will for many years to come. I believe that as a parliament we have a responsibility to help those people.
I rise today to pay tribute to one of Newcastle's most dedicated health professionals, Jaelea Skehan. Jaelea is a director of the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, a registered psychologist and a conjoint teaching fellow at the University of Newcastle's School of Medicine. She was recently recognised as one of Australia's 100 Women of Influence for 2014, alongside a range of other outstanding women including overall Woman of Influence 2014, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.
Jaelea was recognised for her work in the fields of suicide prevention and the prevention of mental ill-health. She is an international leader in her field and has been a driving force in the development and success of the national Mindframe initiative that encourages responsible, accurate and sensitive coverage of suicide issues by the media.
I recently had the pleasure of joining Jaelea at two Mental Health Month events in Newcastle: the HIMH and Headspace's annual Youth Rockin' the Black Dog music competition that helps raise awareness of youth mental health issues, and at a community breakfast to launch the start of a two-day program on digital innovation and mental health as part of the annual Design Interactive and Green Tech festival in Newcastle
Jaelea is a highly valued member of the Newcastle and Hunter community. She is indeed a woman of influence, and I congratulate her for her contribution and leadership in helping to prevent mental illness.
I rise to acknowledge candidates in the Tasmanian council elections, which closed yesterday. It is a noble and humbling act to put oneself forward for public office and I congratulate all of the candidates for their sense of public service. In my electorate of Bass, there are five local government areas and most of the results have already been decided.
In Launceston, Alderman Albert van Zetten has been comfortably returned as mayor, a position he has held since 2007. In West Tamar, Councillor Christina Holmdahl has been elected mayor for the first time in a close contest. In Dorset, Councillor Barry Jarvis was returned unopposed. In George Town, Councillor Bridget Archer was elected unopposed as mayor for the first time.
It is notable that in Meander Valley, Councillor Craig Perkins has been returned as mayor with almost 75 per cent of the vote over his only opponent.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister, affectionately known as the 'bowser bandit'. Has the Prime Minister done a dirty deal with the Greens?
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As 'electricity' Bill knows that kind of thing is out of order and you should ask him to withdraw it. And I will withdraw in advance!
Madam Speaker—
Both members will resume their seats. I think we will refrain from using either epithet.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has—
Madam Speaker, as 'backstabbing' Bill well knows those kinds of epithets are not allowed—
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left!
I asked him to withdraw, and I withdrew in advance. And I am happy to withdraw in advance again! And we can keep playing this game until the Leader of the Opposition withdraws.
The Leader of the Opposition may assist the House—
Yes. I withdraw the reference that was used in the Herald-Sun today about the Prime Minister. My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister done a dirty deal with the Greens to increase petrol tax?
An incident having occurred in the chamber—
That is almost worthy of just choosing six and saying, 'Leave immediately.' That is a deliberate and flagrant abuse of the ruling I have made about props being used in this chamber and I would ask the attendants to go around and collect them.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a) and so will the member for Griffith! Immediately!
The member for Wakefield and the member for Griffith then left the chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
And I can see the members for Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Blaxland. They will leave!
The member for Adelaide, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Blaxland then left the chamber.
I call the honourable member for Herbert.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on progress—
Opposition members interjecting—
Madam Speaker—
The member for Herbert will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was lost in the hubbub.
Madam Speaker, I ask again—
No, you do not need to. The Prime Minister has the call.
You said he was lost in the hubbub—
I said you were. Resume your seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
The measure that the government announced yesterday is a budget measure. We did our best to get it passed in one way and, given the unwillingness of members opposite to participate in the process of budget repair, we thought we would do it a different way. We are determined to get our budget measures passed; one way or another we are determined to get our budget measures passed.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It just goes to relevance: has the Prime Minister done a deal with the Greens on petrol tax? Yes or no?
Well, you'd know about deals with the Greens party!
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer will desist! This is only Wednesday. The Treasurer will desist, the Leader of the Opposition will cease responding and the Prime Minister has the call.
The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is: of course not. But what I say to the Leader of the Opposition is that this is a government which is determined to address the debt-and-deficit disaster which we inherited from members opposite. We are determined to address the debt-and-deficit disaster that we inherited from members opposite.
We have not brought in a new tax. We have simply resumed indexation of an old tax. We have simply done what Bob Hawke did. And I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: Bob Hawke was a real Labor leader. Bob Hawke was someone who was prepared to put the national interest ahead of short-term politicking. And I say to the Leader of the Opposition: just for once, he should think about the country and not about politicking. And he ought to be prepared to engage with the government on the vital national task of solving the debt-and-deficit disaster which this government has inherited.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I come from Townsville, the site of Australia's largest Army base. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress in strengthening Australia's national security laws?
I do thank the member for his question and I do acknowledge the thousands of defence personnel and defence families that he represents.
I can assure the member who asked the question that the safety of the community is the first duty of government. As members opposite and as all members of this parliament know, there are about 70 Australians known to be fighting with terrorist groups in the Middle East. There are at least 100 Australians known to be supporting them with recruitment and funding. Some 70 Australian passports have been cancelled, to stop terrorists and potential terrorists from travelling.
As we have discovered, to our cost, the ISIL death cult has declared war against the world, including Australia. We saw the attacks on two policemen in Victoria, we have seen the murders of two soldiers in Canada and we have seen the attack on policemen in New York.
What we are seeing every day are new exhortations on the internet, urging fanatics to murder everyone and anyone who acts or thinks differently from them. This is the challenge that we face. In response, Australian aircraft are engaged in air strikes on ISIL targets in Iraq, because national security and international security in these times are indivisible. We have boosted funding for our security agencies by $630 million over the forward estimates period.
This government is passing laws to make it easier to arrest and jail terrorists returning from overseas, to monitor potential terrorists here in Australia and to stop the preachers of hate from corrupting our youth. These are very important laws, and I can inform the House that earlier today, in the Senate, the foreign fighters bill did pass that House. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive support that he has given to the government on this matter. On questions of national security, it is always best if government and opposition can stand shoulder to shoulder. As always, I stress that the government will do everything we humanly can to keep our people safe. All our measures are directed at terrorism and not religion; and the Australian people should lead normal lives, because the terrorists' goal is to scare us from being ourselves.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the Treasurer's view that because poor people do not drive cars they will not feel the impact of the Prime Minister's petrol tax ambush when it hits in two weeks?
The Treasurer has dealt with that matter.
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat is not in her seat and may not interject at all.
I have dealt with that matter and obviously I stand by my words, and the Treasurer stands by the explanation and the apology that he gave at the time. This so-called ambush is precisely the policy that was introduced by the Hawke government. What does it say about the contemporary Labor Party that they are always thinking about short-term politics and not about the long-term national interest? What does it say about the contemporary Labor Party when, having created this debt and deficit disaster, they are wilfully in denial about what they have done and they are refusing to engage constructively in solving the problem?
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will desist.
They were wreckers in government and now they are determined to be wreckers in opposition too. We stand by our budget measures. Our budget measures are necessary changes to address the debt and deficit disaster that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have created.
() (): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the minister to reports in today's media, including this article in The Sydney Morning Herald, warning of the dangers of increased terrorist recruitment of Australia's young people. Will the minister please outline to the House what measures the government is taking to protect our youth from extremism?
I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. I note his deep concern about this issue. It is vital that the Australian government work with communities across this country to counter the violent and extreme narrative of ISIL, or Daesh, as it is known in the Middle East.
This terrorist organisation is seeking to exploit the young and, indeed, mostly vulnerable people, many who have a history of mental illness or drug abuse. They are encouraging them to not only commit atrocities in this conflict but also to spread poisonous ideology and terrorist skills into other countries, particularly in the West. Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon, with 23 individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences in Australia since 2001, but it is increasing in numbers and in its extent. Several major terrorist plots in this country have been foiled by our security agencies. The threat has been heightened by the rise of ISIL in recent times. Australian foreign fighters in Iraq are committing offences against Australian laws, they are adding to the suffering of the people in Iraq and Syria, and they are putting themselves in mortal danger. Indeed, we are currently seeking to confirm whether the 16th Australian foreign fighter has been killed in this conflict.
The Australian government has responded over time to this growing threat of extremism through a range of measures that include: community grants that are used to support efforts to turn vulnerable minds away from extremist influences; projects have been supported for youth mentoring; interfaith education aimed at building tolerance, team building and the like for isolated youth; sport; educational materials; and leadership training. Community engagement remains a key plank of the response to extremism, and government officials right up to the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have been engaging with leaders of relevant communities. In fact, Senator Fierravanti-Wells and the member for Banks have arranged meetings with me, with Muslim leaders.
There is also an effort underway to raise awareness of the range of support services available to families who fear that one of their members may be influenced by radicalism and violence. One of the key responses—and this was a major part of the international response—is to tackle the incidence of violent extremism propagated through the internet and social media in particular. The Australian government is working with state and territory governments to rehabilitate people imprisoned for terrorism offences and to prevent the radicalisation of other prisoners.
We also need to better understand the attraction for some young people of violent extremism—this 'death cult', as the Prime Minister calls it. The government is supporting research to build an evidence base to better guide our response. Violent extremism is a complex and difficult enemy that requires a coordinated domestic and international response. This government will take all necessary steps to keep our country safe.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the Prime Minister's repeal day report shows that, on top of his $2.2 billion petrol tax ambush, the Prime Minister is slugging petrol stations with their very own $5.1 million petrol station tax—that is $800 on average, for every petrol station, every year. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to hit Australian motorists with a petrol tax whammy?
I think the Leader of the Opposition has been set up by the Manager of Opposition Business, because the Manager of Opposition Business made exactly the same claim on radio this morning. But the claim is simply wrong. If members opposite understood how our tax system worked, they would know this. This excise is paid by oil companies, not by petrol stations. Get it? It is paid by oil companies not by petrol stations. Individual petrol stations will not be required to do anything different. No wonder those on the other side were in love with tax; they do not understand how it works. They do not understand the pain it causes. But we do.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Mr Prime Minister, in recent days we have been talking about previous prime ministers and their legacies. Can you please tell the House about your vision for the regions? How will this play out in practical terms for communities and businesses that are crippled by cross-border issues in areas such as Albury-Wodonga? What would you like your legacy to be for Albury-Wodonga?
I thank the member for Indi for her question. I want strong and prosperous regions just like I want a strong and prosperous country. The best way to have a strong and prosperous country is to boost our economy by cutting taxes, by reducing regulation and by ensuring that government spending is sustainable rather than out of control. This is the best way we can help our regions.
But I appreciate that, for the member for Indi, representing the people of Wodonga, there are the usual cross-border issues for the Albury-Wodonga conurbation, if you like. This is why we need to try to get the Federation working better than it does right now. That is my plea to all of us. Let us work together to try to ensure that our Federation works better in the future than it has in the recent past. Let us be big enough to have a constructive conversation about this. Let us be big enough to think of our country and not just the next election.
So I say to members opposite, I say to the state premiers, I say to the opposition leaders right around our country: let's all join 'Team Australia' and see if we can do things better in the future than we have in the past. If we can do this, if we can rise to this challenge, I believe the people of Australia for once will be able to feel more proud of their parliament.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who I thank for recently visiting HMAS Creswell to inspect the Cape class border protection vessels. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government has taken to secure our borders? How important is a consistent approach to border protection?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and for inviting me to join her on that day. She, like the other members on this side of the House, can all say to their constituents that this government is doing what we said we would do on our borders; we are doing it in the way we said we would do it; and we are getting the results we said we would get.
Critical to that has of course been the consistency of our position. Of course that is true. They would not understand about consistency of positions on border protection on the other side of the House. What has also been important is the issue of cohesion—a cohesive approach of purpose, of policy, of leadership and of organisation. Operation Sovereign Borders brings together 16 different agencies working together towards one goal, and that has been to stop the boats, and that is what is being achieved.
But that cohesive approach that we have had on border protection is also delivering cohesion in our community. Today the Scanlon Foundation report was released. What came out of that report was a critical finding, which I would hope all members of this House would appreciate: concerns about immigration levels being too high are at the lowest level on record for these surveys. In addition to that, positive sentiment towards immigration is at a level equivalent to or better than across the Western world.
One of the reasons we have been so strong in our borders is because we believe in our immigration program and we want to restore confidence in that immigration program that was lost under the previous government because they lost control of our borders. So we welcome that result. Professor Markus was also able to attribute that increase in positive sentiment for immigration to the coalition's strong border protection policies that have reduced concerns in the community about the asylum issue.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know those opposite do not understand this. The one area of cohesion we have not been able to produce is on the issue of border protection for those opposite, because Labor are riven with division when it comes to border protection. The captain of 'Team Idiot' over there—
Madam Speaker—
Here is the lieutenant of Team Idiot.
Madam Speaker—
The minister will refer to people by their correct titles. The minister has the call.
I withdraw, Madam Speaker
Yesterday and today we have had the Leader of the Opposition say that it is the policy of the Labor Party at the next election to return to the failed policies of the Rudd government. That is what he said, he said he is going to eschew the policies of this government. He has turned back on turn backs. He says no to temporary protection visas and he wants to return to the failed policies of the Rudd government. Talk about a thief returning to the scene of a crime. At the next election the choice will be clear: you can have the policies of this Leader of the Opposition and Kevin Rudd, or you can have the policies of this Prime Minister and the policies of John Howard. I can tell you there is a very clear choice.
My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to ambush Australian motorists with a $2.2 billion petrol tax without a mandate from the Australian people and without the approval of the parliament. Prime Minister, did the National Party support your increased petrol tax, or did you ambush the National Party just like you ambushed the Australian people—particularly those living in rural and regional Australia?
The members of the coalition all understand that we were elected with a clear mandate to fix the budget. There is no easy way to address the debt and deficit disaster which we inherited.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will desist.
There is no easy way to undo the $667 billion of projected debt and the $123 billion of projected deficits that we inherited from members opposite. There is no easy way to do this, yet we must, lest every single Australian man, woman and child be saddled with $25,000 each in debt—Labor debt.
Madam Speaker—
I have explained exactly why we are doing it and I think I am concluded.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will join his other colleagues under 94(a), the ones who left earlier.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government's higher education reforms have been received and the impact if reform is not achieved?
I thank the member for Banks for his question. I am pleased to report to the House that there has been an avalanche of support for the government's higher education reforms.
Opposition members interjecting—
I would refer the Leader of the Opposition—and his hyenas laughing behind him—to the media releases from Universities Australia, from Innovative Research Universities, from Australian Technology Network, from the Regional Universities Network—
Ms King interjecting—
Member for Ballarat, no props are allowed.
from the Group of Eight, from TAFE Directors Australia, from the Council of Private Higher Education and from ACPET, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, all calling for the government's higher education reforms to be passed.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin may not speak.
I refer the opposition in the House to the poll published in the Daily Telegraph today showing a majority of Australians, especially students, support reform of the higher education sector. I would refer those opposite to the editorial in the Fairfax press today, in the Financial Review, and I will quote from it. It says:
Gough Whitlam's vision of free university education was affordable when only about five per cent of the population was going to university, but with the proportion now close to 40%, changes being put to parliament by the government are essential to maintain a high quality university system open to all Australians. The key to maintaining both quality and opportunity is of course to allow the market to better reflect student choice, helped by scholarships for the disadvantaged.
That is exactly what the government is proposing to the Senate in our higher education reforms—quality universities with scholarships for the disadvantaged; expanding opportunity for the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history that they describe as 'crumbs'. They want to reject that. If the reforms are not passed, the Commonwealth scholarships will not go ahead.
If the reforms are not passed, 80,000 extra young Australians will not go to university because of the Labor Party. Fifteen hundred technical and support staff will lose their jobs in research infrastructure across Australia because of Labor. Fifty thousand higher education students will face 20 and 25 per cent loan fees if these reforms do not go ahead. No Australian Research Council Future Fellowships will be awarded, because they are part of these reforms. There will be insufficient support for research at places like the University of Tasmania's Antarctic Gateway program or tropical health at James Cook University. This is what Labor is turning its back on for cheap political opportunism. The cheapjack political opportunists of the other side are wanting to deny that to students and universities. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the government's decision to increase petrol tax without seeking the approval of parliament. I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with his Finance Minister that:
If it wasn't validated by the parliament within 12 months, the money would have to … go back to fuel manufacturers and to fuel importers who would essentially have a windfall gain.
I wanted to have a go, I really did. Of course we agree with the Minister for Finance—there is no doubt about that—because the Minister for Finance is across his facts. The Minister for Finance knows what he is talking about. The Minister for Finance tells the truth.
I was hoping I would get a question from the member for McMahon today, because he has had a pretty ordinary week so far.
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The member for Kingsford Smith will desist.
The good news is we are more than half way through the week. The bad news is there is one more question time tomorrow. The fact is, only yesterday the member for McMahon said that when it came to alcopops there was bipartisan agreement, and I pointed out to him that the member for Sydney said that without our agreement it would not have gone through.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon has asked his question.
On private health insurance, the member for McMahon also got it wrong. It is the same member for McMahon that said that China is on its way to floating the yen, even though the Chinese and the Japanese have not been in that sort of union for probably over 1,500 years. But now, today, the member for McMahon said on Sky:
We've had a tax review, the Henry tax review, it didn't recommend this particular change to fuel excise.
Madam Speaker, when the relevance rule was changed to direct relevance answers as oblique as this could no longer be in order.
The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Treasurer has the call.
So the member for McMahon on Sky News referring to the fuel tax said:
'We've had—
the Labor Party—
a tax review, the Henry tax review, it didn't recommend this particular change.
So I went to the Henry tax review—I found this one—and I went to recommendation 65:
Fuel tax should apply to all fuels used in road transport on the basis of energy content and be indexed to inflation.
'…and be indexed to inflation'! Hang on, so now I have to go searching for Labor Party documents. We are asking them to table all their documents. He got it wrong. But it goes one step further. The shadow minister for finance—he is a card as well—said, 'It's outrageous! Compliance costs! All those service stations will have to pay $800 more.' I went, 'Hang on, where did you get this?' because the regulatory impact statement for the bills before the House says:
… of the $5.1 million in compliance costs, $5.034 million is for the 186,000 people who are claiming back a tax refund.
'… claiming back a tax refund.' So they are actually spending their time claiming back more money from the Commonwealth, not the $800 per service station. This is the Labor Party. The Labor Party cannot get its facts right. The Labor Party cannot be trusted with money. Labor Party is just hopeless.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline how the government is helping to build a modern, prosperous economy that will create more opportunities for all Australians?
I do thank the honourable member for her question, because we are in the business of getting rid of red tape; we are in the business of getting rid of excessive regulation; we are in the business of a fairer, simpler taxation system; and we are in the business of a fairer deal for Australian consumers and Australian businesses.
As a result of the policy initiatives we have put in place I am pleased to report that in the first nine months of this year 170,000 new companies have registered with ASIC. That is nearly 17,000 more than the first nine months of last year under Labor. So companies are registering, people are setting up new businesses and, as a result of our initiatives on tax and the economy and the budget and a range of other things, Australia is getting back to work. That is good news. It is one of the reasons why we have job creation this year running at three times the speed of that of the last year under Labor.
One of the ways we are doing it is to get rid of red tape and, as a result of the repeal day initiatives and the good work of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, and others, the fundamental point is we are getting rid of $2.1 billion of red tape to business, and that is welcome.
Also, when we implement measures, we seek to ensure that we have as little cost to all those involved is possible. That is in stark contrast to the experience of Labor, because we have good memories of what Labor tried to do in previous years. No-one knows this better, of course, than the member for McMahon. I come back to the member for McMahon—it is like a boomerang coming back all the time—and the great example of the member for McMahon's work in compliance costs was something called Fuelwatch! If we are going to talk about fuel, let's talk about Fuelwatch. The Labor Party promised that they would watch fuel prices. The problem was, when it came to watching fuel prices, according to a leaked Department of Finance paper, it was going to cost $20.7 million in the first year to watch fuel prices and $18.7 million per year after that—to watch fuel prices. That is the Labor Party's argument about deregulation. That is the Labor Party way of doing things. They were not doing anything; they were watching fuel prices.
The only friend of Australian business, the only friend of prosperity, the only friend of job creation is the coalition government, because it is the coalition government that has put in place initiatives that are delivering the prosperity that Australians deserve.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his refusal to answer the previous question and the Treasurer's confirmation that oil companies stand to win a windfall gain. Prime Minister, why should Australian motorists pay oil companies because of your ambush on petrol tax?
There will be no such issue if members opposite act constructively and responsibly for once in this term of parliament. Let's be absolutely crystal clear what this is. This is something that we had a mandate to do—to repair the budget.
Opposition members interjecting—
There is a cacophony on my left that will cease!
There is no easy way to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that Labor created—no easy way. So we had a clear mandate to address the budget. This is not a new tax; it is the indexation of an old one. It was a measure introduced by Bob Hawke. This thing that members opposite are complaining about is a measure that was introduced by Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader.
I accept that as a result of this measure the average family will pay some 40c a week more. I accept that. No-one wants to pay more, even if it is only 40c a week. No-one wants to pay more. This is a government which understands the pressure on the families and households of Australia. That is why we got rid of the carbon tax. By getting rid of the carbon tax—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
This constant interjection from across the ministerial table from the Leader of the Opposition notwithstanding, let me simply make the point: this is a government which is reducing the burden of tax on Australian families. The Leader of the Opposition wants to save them from 40c a week, but he wants to put back $550 a year. That is what he wants to do. We will do what we were elected to do, which was to get the budget back under control, to end the debt and deficit disaster which the Leader of the Opposition helped to create.
My question is to the wonderful Minister for Small Business. I would like to thank the Minister for Small Business for coming out to Lindsay recently to meet with 100 business owners. Will the minister please outline to the House how cutting red tape will make life easier for the almost 10,000 small businesses in my electorate of Lindsay and elsewhere in Australia?
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will desist. I call the honourable the Minister for Small Business, be he wonderful or not!
I thank the wonderful member for Lindsay; what a great job she is doing representing the small businesses in her community. And it is not surprising; like this side of the House, small business runs through her veins. She knows that excessive compliance burden and red tape costs land most heavily on the smaller enterprises. That is why we made the commitment to cut $1 billion worth of red tape. But not only have we done what we said we were going to do; we have doubled the amount of red tape and compliance cost savings—more than 400 separate measures, $2.1 billion worth of compliance tax savings right across the role of government and the work of our agencies. The demands government makes on small business, the one-stop shop streamlining so we can get those projects and opportunities more in reach of small businesses.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway is not in her seat and may not speak.
In the area of tax more than 440,000 small businesses will benefit from changes to entry thresholds for GST and PAYG reporting. That is $63 million worth of compliance savings. In areas of the Corporations Act the silly idea that you need to appoint and retain an auditor for certain corporations that do not actually need to conduct an audit. These are logical and sensible changes. The way in which small business deals with government, the single business service entry point, our work on the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, moving the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House out of the fog in Medicare, where no small business would think to go, into the ATO. We have seen a 24 per cent increase in the use of that service. Our own contracting—simplifying contract documents. Paying bills on time. If they are too late after 30 days and under $1 million, we should be paying interest because we should not improve the Commonwealth's cash flow off the back of small business. Even in the way businesses deal with each other. The franchise reforms not only improving and strengthening that franchise code but an $8.6 million savings in compliance costs. Fixing the Personal Property Securities Register, fixing the damage of Labor's hashed effort to mess around with employee share streams and streamlining the arrangements of making those within reach of small businesses.
There is more work to do. Labor's own paid parental leave scheme—why do we have to have employers handling those payments twice when the government is already processing those payments and sending them not to the recipient but to a business to double handle under the threat of a fine. Why do that? There is another $48 million worth of savings there. So, while Labor is politicking and making an awful lot of noise, we are tackling pointless, overreaching, economy-clagging regulation. No-one benefits more from that than the small businesses whose job it has been and continues to be the creation of jobs and opportunities and recovering the 519,000 jobs lost in small business under Labor.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Executive Director of the Australian Automobile Association, who yesterday described his petrol tax ambush:
I think frankly it's weak, it's sneaky and it's tricky - and I've to say as well I think it's also quite a gutless move.
What did you do to the FTP?
The Treasurer will desist. The Prime Minister has the call.
Plainly I do not agree with that. This government is having the courage to tell the Australian people exactly how we propose to tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta will desist.
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should have similar courage.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin will remove himself under 94(a). I have had enough.
The member for Rankin then left the chamber.
We did tell the Australian people that we would be imposing budget discipline on our country. We did tell the Australian people dozens and dozens of times that we would be getting the budget—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist or leave; the choice is his.
under control and that it would not be easy. We have had the courage to put our plan forward. I do not say that every aspect of our budget plan is something that people like—I do not pretend that for a second—but we are prepared to tackle the long-term national interest. We are prepared to do what is in the long-term interest of our country, and all the Leader of the Opposition is ever prepared to do is play politics on this.
To his credit, he has been prepared to think of our nation and not just the next election when it comes to national security, and I say to the Leader of the Opposition it would be better for him as well as better for our country if on economic security as well as on national security he was prepared just for once to think about our country and not just about short-term politics.
I inform the House that we have in the distinguished visitors gallery a delegation from Germany led by Professor Dr Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag. We also have His Excellency Dr Christoph Muller, Ambassador for the Federal Republic of Germany to Australia. We make you very welcome.
We also have present in the Speaker's gallery the Hon. Judi Moylan, former member for Pearce, and the Hon. Peter Katsambanis MLC, member of the Western Australian Legislative Council. We make you welcome as well.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how government policies are encouraging investment in our airports?
I thank the honourable member for Brisbane for the question. Certainly Australia's airports are doing their part to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. There are billions of dollars worth of projects underway at the present time in our capital city airports alone. The honourable member would notice, every time she leaves Brisbane Airport, the tremendous work that is being done in constructing the parallel runway in Brisbane—something like 13 million cubic metres of sand has to be moved on to that site and that is well and truly underway. This project is part of a $5 billion commitment to the Brisbane community which will come as a result of this investment at Brisbane Airport.
There are similar examples in other parts of the country—significant terminal upgrades and significant commitments to new runways which will make a real difference. Around 60 million journeys were made by Australians travelling on domestic air services in the year ending 30 June 2014—an increase of 1½ per cent over previous years. It is interesting to note that routes like Sydney-Melbourne, Brisbane-Sydney and Brisbane-Melbourne are among the busiest air routes in the world. Australians certainly need their air services to get from one part of what is a very large continent to another.
In addition to what is happening in Brisbane, those who visit Melbourne will notice the work going on there on new terminal buildings and terminal upgrades. They also have a plan for a new parallel runway. Better facilities are being provided in Perth for fly-in, fly-out workers and all of the passengers travelling through that airport. Again, there is another plan for a parallel runway. Adelaide Airport—
An honourable member interjecting—
I note the member's interjection. Adelaide Airport has just announced a 30-year blueprint for a $2 billion expansion. Again, that is a great vote of confidence in South Australia. In Hobart, the airport runway extension planning is underway, assisted by a $38 million contribution from the federal government. When we come to Sydney, Kingsford Smith airport has major plans to upgrade its road network and in Western Sydney the decision has been made to build a new airport; $3.6 billion worth of roads to service that area and the whole of the Western Sydney community is underway.
This government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century. Our airport owners and operators are joining in that task to ensure that Australia has the infrastructure it needs to service its growing population and that we can travel conveniently around our country whenever we choose.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's previous comments about fuel excise increases on 13 August 2009:
The extra cost of fuel always flows through to increased prices on everything we buy. The Coalition recognised this in 2001 when we put a freeze on fuel excise …
Deputy Prime Minister, what has changed?
Government members: Your debt!
There will be silence on my right! The Leader of the House will desist.
What has changed, and changed dramatically, is years of Labor debt—six years of Labor debt which has left the people of our country, and people living in regional Australia, to take on their share of the $25,000 per person debt on the heads of all Australians.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin is not in her seat and may not speak. If she wishes to leave, she will keep it up.
All Australians have a debt now that they did not have when the previous coalition government was in office and delivering balanced budgets. The reality is—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to refer you to page 111 of Practice, which refers to the front benches to the right of the Speaker being reserved for ministers, and members of the opposition executive sitting on the front benches on the Speaker's left; only other members have allotted seats. As long as anyone on the front bench of either side is sitting on the front bench, they are in their seat. Therefore, the members of the opposition executive should not be told they are out of their seat so long as they are on that bench.
They will still be told to be quiet! They are interjecting and it is disorderly.
The legislation this government will be bringing to the parliament in relation to the fuel excise arrangements involves assurances that there will be a diesel fuel rebate paid to those entitled to it to make up for the half-a-cent a litre increase in excise. If the Labor Party opposes that legislation—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
He has just indicated he is going to oppose it. He is going to deny regional Australians the excise rebate they are entitled to.
Honourable members interjecting—
There is too much chatter across the chamber!
He is going to take away from regional communities our action to ensure there is no additional cost of transport passed on to those who live outside the capital cities. Shame, shame, shame on Labor: they are so out of touch with regional communities they are not prepared to support the fuel excise rebate paid to ensure that transport costs in regional Australia do not go up when there are increases in the fuel excise. The opposition has made it absolutely clear they do not care in the least about people who live in regional Australia. They are happy to tax and to run up debt; but when there is an opportunity to mitigate those costs they are going to vote against it. Shame!
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on my right and on my left!
Will the minister outline how the government is delivering on its election commitments to boost the competitiveness of Australian agriculture through investment in infrastructure?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note that in his electorate of Flynn we have four dams on the list—Connors River Dam, Nathan Dam, Rookwood and Eden Bann. It is extremely important that Australia understands that we have to build dams. We are going to be forced into building dams. In 1980 we were storing 5.5 megalitres per person; currently we are storing around four megalitres per person. If no new dams are built, then by 2061 it will be 2.6 megalitres per person. There is definitely the capacity on norms for us to build dams. The US and Europe store about 10 per cent of their water. The world average is about nine per cent of their water, and we are storing about six per cent of our water.
I think we have to be able to reach back and claim the vision of Curtin, Chifley and Menzies, who built the Snowy Mountains scheme. That was part of the process that the built our nation. If you want zero emissions, you are going to get it from hydroelectricity. If you want to expand our capacity to produce soft commodities, to balance the books again, you are going to get out of agriculture and irrigation. It is absolutely important that people understand that this is not a process that is way into the future—it is happening right now. We have started on Chaffey Dam. We have started on Wallace Lakes. We have started on the Apsley scheme. We have started on the Menindee storage. We are actually doing it. We are actually at work right now doing precisely this.
It is important that if we are going to build dams, we have to understand what the Labor Party is going to do. If we are to understand what the Labor Party is going to do, we would have to actually look at their policy. The shadow minister for agriculture said that he would happily expand on the ALP's NFF scorecard—this was their policy—and convert it into a glossy policy document, but he was not sure that this had a great deal of merit. So the closest that the shadow minister could give us for a policy document was actually the wrong version, because the latest version had us in front; we actually won. But what is sneaking round in the bowels of the Parliamentary Library—I saw it last night and I thought I should table this—is that they actually do have a policy document. They just did not know about it. They do have a policy document but they had not read it. They had not read their own document. So I table, for the benefit of the shadow minister for agriculture, his policy.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document from which he was reading, so we can check it against the Hansard, which of course will be produced tomorrow.
Does the minister have a document he wishes to table?
Madam Speaker, I would love to table the federal election scorecard which shows that we had 13.5 stars, and the Labor Party only had eight. This was actually what you put up as your policy document. Actually, it was the previous one, which was wrong. You had them both.
The member for Hunter.
Madam Speaker, to reconcile the Hansard I need the document he was extensively reading from.
Resume your seat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to ambush Australian motorists with a $2.2 billion petrol tax without a mandate from the Australian people and without the approval of parliament. How does the Prime Minister respond to Liz Taylor from Melbourne, who said in today's Herald Sun:
… everybody has a car and it will be very hard on people who can't afford any rises in petrol at all. That's what is important to me.
I make two observations in response to the member who has asked the question. First, this is a government that is reducing the overall burden of tax. The budget reduced the overall burden of tax by $5.7 billion. Sure, we are indexing fuel excise but we have abolished the carbon tax—the carbon tax that the member presumably wanted to stay. We gave people a $550 per household a year benefit. That is the first point I make: we are reducing the overall burden of tax. The second point I make is that, due to the operation of the ordinary market, petrol prices at the moment are going down.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister outline the government's plan to cut travel times for motorists in my home city of Melbourne? Are there any threats to this plan?
Thank you to the member of Higgins for that question. She is a great believer in the investments that we are making in Victoria for our infrastructure program, led of course by the infrastructure Prime Minister. The member for Higgins, along with the member for Deakin—Townsville is not included in that, I don't think—the member for La Trobe fights very hard; the member for Casey fights very hard on the eastern side, and of course the member for Corangamite, who is constantly arguing for the East West Link stage 2, which this government funded in the budget with an additional 1½—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Minister for Social Services, as the member for Grayndler rightly picks up, is a big supporter of the East West Link.
The member for Grayndler will desist. The member for Grayndler might have to help by leaving.
And of course, the western side of the project we funded with an additional $1½ billion dollars in the budget, because the infrastructure Prime Minister said that we need both sides of this project done. The benefit will be enjoyed by Victorians in Melbourne for the 6,000 jobs it will create, the productivity increase, the benefit for the people who live in Melbourne for reducing traffic time and travel time.
We are not the only people on this side who support this approach. In July 2008, there was a group of four Labor MPs at that time who supported in writing the need for an east-west connector across the city of Melbourne. They were the member for Lalor at the time, the Hon. Julia Gillard; the member for Gellibrand at the time, Nicola Roxon; the member for Gorton, Brendan O'Connor; and of course the member for Maribyrnong, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, who was part of this submission. It is a very good submission and makes some very good points. It makes a very good point in the executive summary. I might indulge the House and read what the East West Link Needs Assessment Overview conducted by Sir Rod Eddington says. It stresses:
The consequences of 'doing nothing' are negative and far-reaching. They will threaten Melbourne's future economic success and liveability. Substantial new investment is needed in the transport network to avoid these consequences, support the changes taking place across Melbourne and help to open up new jobs and business opportunities across the city.
We agree with the member for Maribyrnong's position in 2008. We just hope that the member for Maribyrnong talks to his colleague in Melbourne, the Socialist Left faction leader Dan Andrews, and makes clear to him that the policy from the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt, is not the policy to follow. Ripping up the East-West contract will not only raise a sovereign risk for Victoria if Labor is successful in the Victorian election but also undo a very important investment to create jobs and to create economic opportunity in Melbourne. The Leader of the Opposition should speak to Dan Andrews and make very clear that he should get rid of this ridiculous policy, led by the Greens, and support 6,000 jobs and support the City of Melbourne.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to ambush Australian motorists with a $2.2 billion petrol tax, without a mandate from the Australian people and without the approval of the parliament. How does the Prime Minister respond to the motorist who said on Channel 7 News last night, 'Looks like we're going to have to get rid of one of the cars, because we just can't afford to run two'?
No-one likes any additional costs. Even 40c a week is an additional cost; I accept that. But this was an additional cost which Bob Hawke thought was something that the Australian people should have to bear, given that it was the Hawke government that introduced fuel excise indexation. So the first point I make is that, while it is an additional cost, it is the kind of cost which former Labor leaders have thought was economically responsible. While 40c a week is certainly not nothing, it is rather dwarfed by the $550-a-year saving which this government has given the households of Victoria, through scrapping the carbon tax.
Let me just remind the member who asked the question that the abolition of the carbon tax means electricity savings for Victorian families and small businesses of up to 12.4 per cent. It means savings on gas bills for Victorians of up to 10.5 per cent. I refer the member to modelling prepared for the Victorian government by Deloitte Access Economics that showed that the abolition of the carbon tax should mean 35,000 more jobs in Victoria.
My question is to the Minister for Industry. Will the minister please provide further details to the House on the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda and the action plan to restore competitiveness to Australia's economy.
I thank the member for Moore for his question and congratulate him on the work that he is doing in that electorate. He is a more than worthy successor to my close friend Mal Washer. The member for Moore knows that the economy is changing and that we cannot just keep going on applying bandaids and simple handouts to try and fix the industry sector. Historically, the industry sector evolved around agriculture and then it moved to heavy manufacturing. But what we are seeing now is a third wave of change around fundamental economic skills and employment.
We are transitioning in Australia to higher value-added industries and smarter production and specialised services based around skills, research and innovation. The Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda has some 17 concrete proposals which set out a national vision for the nation's industry to evolve into. It places science right at the centre of industry, and that is incredibly important. We need to embed scientists in industries in Australia to make industries competitive. As well as that, of course, we have emphasised the importance of STEM—science, engineering, technology and maths—and a trial of the pre-tech model, which the Prime Minister saw firsthand in the United States.
Today, the Minister for Education and I have released our document called Boosting our commercial returns, which is a consultation paper, for which we are looking for input right across the sector. In terms of the response, Conor King, of the Innovative Research University, said: 'The IRU applaud the government's commitment to enhancing industry driven research in Australia's universities'. He goes on to say, 'Universities are a critical part of the innovation process'. It is not just the universities who are singing the praises of the statement where we have changed the recognition of international standards for medical devices. We have had Georgina Sanderson, Director Policy Market Access at Cochlear, say to me in a letter on 20 October: 'Cochlear is now better placed to export its products, create jobs and improve health outcomes.' What we are seeing from this government is a government that is prepared to reform our economy and play to our strengths. Like the rest of Asia, Australia must evolve. We must play to our strengths, and we must provide long-term stability for the industries—unlike those opposite who rotated through six science ministers in six years.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has done a dirty deal with Clive Palmer to give taxpayers' money to Australia's dirtiest, biggest polluters to keep polluting?
Mr Hockey interjecting—
I call the honourable, the Prime Minister. The Treasurer will desist so that we can hear the Prime Minister.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will not interject. The Prime Minister has the call.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are always seeking to implement the policies we took to the election. We took direct action—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I said the Leader of the Opposition will desist interjecting. It is either that or he leaves.
We took a policy to the election which was to save the Australian people from the pernicious carbon tax but to tackle climate change through a direct action policy that would result in more trees, better soils and smarter technology, and we continue to try to secure the passage of that legislation through the Senate. Our objective is to try to ensure that this parliament recognises the mandate that this government sought and this government got at the election. That is what we are doing.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline what savings have been passed on to families and businesses in Victoria since the government scrapped the world's biggest carbon tax? Are there any threats to these savings?
I want to thank the member for Corangamite, who voted to repeal the carbon tax because we had, as the Prime Minister said, a mandate to repeal that carbon tax. The Australian people voted for us to have the capacity to repeal the carbon tax, and the members of the government did just that. So today we have had noise from the opposition, some sort of concerns after they themselves voted to oppose repealing the carbon tax. I seem to have some information from the member for Corangamite's own electorate, received just this week. It is a letter from Australian Lamb on the abolition of the carbon tax:
Dear Sarah, we estimate that due to the recent abolition of the carbon tax we will save approximately $200,000 per annum.
And the letter goes on:
Situated in regional Victoria, this not only supports our business but supports the township of Colac as a whole.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will desist!
That is the reality. We have taken a policy to an election, we have sought a mandate, we have spoken to the Australian people, we have won that mandate and then we did what we said we would do: we brought repeal of the carbon tax to this place and we succeeded. And in towns like Colac, there are real world benefits. Right across Victoria, we saw a $3.1 billion hit over the last two years. Now that is gone and that means lower electricity prices and lower gas prices. It means a reduction of up to 12.4 per cent in electricity prices. It means a reduction of up to 10.5 per cent gas prices. These are things that have a real world impact on pensioners, seniors, farmers, manufacturing businesses and businesses such as Australian Lamb in Colac. Yet, there is a question whether or not there is a threat to this. There is. The stated policy, the declared policy, the intended policy of the Leader of the Opposition and the entire Labor Party is to bring back the carbon tax. It does not matter what they call it. It is to increase electricity prices, it is to increase gas prices and it is to put another $200,000 back onto the bill of Australian Lamb. That is their policy, that is their intent and that is their goal. We will not do that. We oppose a carbon tax—lock, stock and barrel. We oppose an ETS—lock, stock and barrel. We will not be bringing one back. They will. They are for higher electricity prices. We are for lower electricity prices.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes. On three separate occasions by the Treasurer. I will deal with each one, if I may.
Please proceed.
The Treasurer said in question time that I claimed yesterday that there was bipartisan support for the alcopops tax. I said no such thing. On 28 October on Capital Hill I said, 'Well, with alcopops there was a broad indication of support that this would eventually pass the parliament.' The evidence that I was right in making that statement is that, on 15 April, the legislation was moved and, on 13 May, in less than one month, it passed the parliament. That is what I was referring to.
On a second matter—
You were saying we were supporting it.
I did not. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a separate personal explanation—by the Leader of the House about three seconds ago.
I am sorry, it does not apply to interjections. Just get on with what you are entitled to do.
I will move on to the second matter.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will desist!
Today, in question time, the Treasurer claimed that I was incorrect in accusing him and the Liberal and National parties of not supporting the means testing of private health insurance. The Liberal and National parties voted against the means testing of the private health insurance rebate on seven separate occasions—that is, each available opportunity. I was right. The Treasurer is wrong.
On a third matter: today the Treasurer claimed that I was incorrect in referring to the Henry tax review. In fact, page 65 of the Henry tax review recommends that revenue from fuel tax imposed be replaced, not increased.
Yesterday in this chamber, while speaking on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the importance of integrity, I made reference to a dishonest campaign run by the former member for Corangamite. The Second Deputy Speaker asked me to withdraw these comments on the basis that I was impugning a member. I initially objected by reason that the person to whom I was referring was a former member and not a member. In light of standing order 90, I ask for your guidance on this matter.
The member will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
There has been a ruling that you have made for some time that questions to the Speaker—
I will deal with the question, thank you. Resume your seat. The member for Corangamite has the call.
Would you like me to repeat the question, Madam Speaker?
No.
Just the last bit. In light of standing order 90, I ask for your guidance on this matter. Thank you.
Under the standing orders, questions to the Speaker are supposed to be about administrative matters and administrative matters only. However, there is an important point that I wish to make and that is this: once a member is asked to withdraw by the chair, there is an obligation to comply with the ruling of the chair; otherwise the matter is compounded and indeed it becomes a reflection on the chair. However, for the purposes of clarity, standing orders 89 and 90, which are the relevant standing orders, apply only to current members and senators. Indeed, 90 applies to members only and 89 applies to members and senators. Joan Child, a former distinguished Speaker in this chair, has noted that. There are other instances when people have been required to withdraw when a former member was mentioned. I think the best way to proceed is that we abide entirely by the standing orders and that standing orders 89 and 90 apply only to current members and senators.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just had a question to the Speaker that was not on administrative matters which has resulted in a ruling. At no point have the opposition raised issues other than administrative matters during questions to the Speaker. I hope that what has happened now is not repeated, because you have asked us not to and we have abided by that—
The member will resume his seat. The reason I have chosen to deal with this matter today—and it is an exception that proves the rule—is very simply that members must understand that if someone in the chair—and some of you would do well to listen—asks somebody to withdraw then they are obliged to comply with the ruling of the chair otherwise they are engaging in a reflection on the chair. From that I went on to make a further statement. That will be the end of the matter.
I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, indeed.
Is it grievous?
Grievous? Actually, Madam Speaker, I am not sure.
The member has the call.
I do believe I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Agriculture during question time today. I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker, because I am not sure exactly what he said but I certainly felt that I had been misrepresented.
I am sorry. If the member cannot recall what he is objecting to, he better take his seat.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
(): I present report No. 16 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private members' business on Monday, 24 November 2014. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear in tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 28 October 2014.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 24 November 2014, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Education and Employment:
TAFE: an Australian asset.
The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Mr E. T. Jones 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
(Notice given 28 October 2014.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Wilkie 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 DR LEIGH: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Act 2013, and for related purposes. (Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Transparency) Bill 2014).
(Notice given 28 October 2014.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Dr Leigh 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MS HENDERSON: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) the Government will contribute $1.5 billion towards the completion of the western section (Stage Two) of Melbourne's East West Link;
(b) the commitment to Stage Two of the East West Link is in addition to the Commonwealth's $1.5 billion contribution towards the $6 to $8 billion Stage One section of the East West Link; and
(c) together, Stage One and Stage Two will create some 6,200 construction jobs which are so important for Melbourne, Geelong and south-west Victoria; and
(2) notes that the:
(a) East West Link is critical to:
(i) easing congestion on the West Gate Bridge and improving Geelong's transport links to Melbourne;
(ii) easing congestion on the Eastern Freeway and alleviating major traffic bottlenecks at Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade; and
(iii) improving freight efficiency and connections for major industries in Melbourne's outer east, north and south east to the Port of Melbourne and international airports;
(b) East West Link will never happen under a Labor Government—State Labor opposes the project despite estimates that the cost of Melbourne's road congestion will grow to $5 billion per annum by 2021 and $7.2 billion by 2031, more than double current levels; and
(c) Victorian Leader of the Opposition has described the East West Link as a 'grand hoax' and has threatened to rip up any contracts that are signed with respect to the project and in doing so, has shown contempt for the people of Victoria.
(Notice given 23 September 2014.)
Time allotted—40 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Henderson 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR WATTS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) with concern that family violence is an issue affecting members of all of our communities, but that not enough attention is given to it in public debate;
(b) that the impact of family violence upon our communities is devastating, especially given:
(i) intimate partner violence is responsible for more ill-health and premature death in women in Victoria under age 45 than high blood pressure, obesity and smoking; and
(ii) one in three women since their teenage years have been exposed to violence, one in five have been exposed to sexual violence, and one woman per week is killed by her partner or former partner;
(c) the importance of a bipartisan approach in addressing such a complex issue and support for addressing family violence by all Members of Parliament within the House; and
(d) with support the creation of the Parliamentarians Against Family Violence friendship group, and acknowledges the success of its launch event on 20 October; and
(2) makes all efforts to raise awareness of the family violence taking place in our communities.
(Notice given 20 October 2014.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Mr Watts—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS RYAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) Government's 2014-15 budget contains the biggest ever cut to schools, leaving classrooms across the country $30 billion worse off over the next decade;
(b) Government has failed to fund the vital fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms and has opened the door to state and territory cuts by promising not to enforce their obligations under the Gonski agreements;
(c) Government has restricted school funding changes to the Consumer Price Index from 2018; and
(d) importance of equity and quality—for every child in every school—in improving student results and building a prosperous future; and
(2) calls on the Government to recognise the Commonwealth's role in funding schools by:
(a) keeping its commitment to honour the signed Gonski agreements; and
(b) reversing its $30 billion cut to schools.
(Notice given 2 September 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Ms Ryan 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR RANDALL: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) dung beetles:
(a) provide an important service to Australia's agricultural sector; and
(b) act as a biological solution that assists in fly control and enhances livestock health;
(2) the work of dung beetles acts to enhance and improve the nutrients in soil, leading to natural fertilisation and reducing nutrient runoff;
(3) greater recognition by industry of the beetles' importance may lead to further widespread adoption;
(4) investigation and research into the introduction of two new species of beetles from France and Spain may provide opportunities to expand the beneficial impacts of dung beetles by increased activity during the spring months, and this could bridge the existing activity gap prior to the activity of native beetles in the summer months; and
(5) agricultural research and development organisations could provide important support in researching the benefits and quarantine implications associated with importing these two new species.
(Notice given 4 September 2014.)
Time allotted—50 minutes .
Mr Randall 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms Ellis: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) importance of quality early childhood education in preparing children for school, and the overwhelming evidence of the positive impact that access to kindergarten and preschool has on life outcomes; and
(b) growing evidence of the enormous social and economic returns that are generated by investment in quality early childhood education;
(2) recognises the progress that has been made in increasing access to kindergarten and preschool since the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education was introduced in 2008, including:
(a) an increase in the proportion of Australian children who attend 15 hours of quality early childhood education in the year before school from just 12 per cent in 2008, to over 56 per cent in 2012; and
(b) evidence that Australian children who access quality early education for 15 hours a week go on to score significantly better in Year Three NAPLAN tests and achieve higher results in Year Four reading, maths and science;
(3) notes the uncertainty surrounding future funding for kindergarten and preschool and understands the impact this has on the sector, teachers, educators and parents balancing work and family; and
(4) calls on the Government to provide certainty of funding for kindergartens and preschools, with the continued goal of ensuring every child receives 15 hours of quality early education a week in the year before school.
(Notice given 2 September 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Ms Ellis 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Mr Entsch: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Marine National Park (Green) Zones as defined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 serve to better protect the biodiversity within the Marine Park and help to ensure:
(a) the continued existence of the unique marine animals, plants and habitats that are found only in the Great Barrier Reef and provide additional protection for threatened species such as dugong and marine turtles;
(b) those industries that rely on the health of the Marine Park are able to continue, providing social and economic benefits to local communities and the wider economy;
(c) a diverse range of other benefits and values of the Marine Park, including recreational, cultural, educational and scientific values, are protected;
(d) that future generations are able to continue to use and enjoy the Marine Park;
(e) the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage values are protected; and
(f) the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources by traditional owners consistent with their traditional practices, are provided for;
(2) accepts that Marine National Park (Green) Zones can be beneficial in:
(a) protecting spawning areas and nursery grounds;
(b) minimising damage to important habitats;
(c) providing refuge for protected species, such as turtles and dugongs;
(d) boosting species numbers, which helps the food web as a whole;
(e) increasing the abundance of fish; and
(f) building the resilience of the reef against threats such as climate change and water pollution;
(3) affirms the Native Title Act 1993 which recognises the right of certain traditional owners to hunt and gather in their sea country and that native title holders may undertake traditional use of marine resources;
(4) recognises that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is working with traditional owners for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, by expanding the Traditional Use of the Marine Resources Agreement program and strengthening communications between local communities, managers and reef stakeholders;
(5) acknowledges the value of the Ranger Program in providing job opportunities for Indigenous people to care for their country, take on important skills, develop career pathways, protect dugongs and turtles and manage environmental threats stemming from feral animals, among other benefits;
(6) calls on the:
(a) Australian Labor Party and the Greens to pass the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 which will enable a tripling of penalties for those poaching turtles and/or dugongs; and
(b) relevant parties to work, as a priority, with traditional owners to progressively increase the protections afforded to threatened species, such as turtle and dugong, through traditional use marine resource agreements and other appropriate means, seeking to:
(i) where traditional rights under the Native Title Act 1993 apply, seek agreement with traditional owners to prohibit the capture and killing of any species from designated Green Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area;
(ii) continue to allow certain activities to take place with a permit, such as research and management programs for fauna and flora where they pose a threat to humans or the environment, as per existing regulations; and
(iii) introduce legislation to prohibit the taking of marine species, including seabirds, in designated Green Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Area, where other efforts have proven to be inadequate;
(7) in the interest of supporting the policing of turtle and dugong product that is transported for commercial purposes, prohibit the movement of native species, taken under the Native Title Act 1993 outside the area in which it is caught; and
(8) recognises that these initiatives would complement a range of measures already being implemented under the Government's Turtle and Dugong Protection Plan and Community Management Plans, which will enhance the protection of marine turtles and dugongs in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait.
(Notice given 22 September 2014; amended 28 October 2014.)
Time allotted—20 minutes .
Mr Entsch 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 22 September 2014).
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
All Members 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2013 (Mr Albanese): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 23 June 2014).
Time allotted remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
All Members 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Prime Minister's petrol tax ambush adding further pressure to the cost of living for Australians.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
There was once a politician who campaigned across the country on cost-of-living issues. He went to every corner of this nation campaigning on cost-of-living issues. He said to the Australian people that they want a grown-up adult government that has thought things through, that has a clear plan to protect people's job security and a clear plan to reduce people's costs of living. We all know who that politician was. He holds high office in Australia now—he is the Prime Minister of Australia. He had a clear plan all right—it just was not clear to the Australian people, because he did not tell the Australian people about it. He had a clear plan—he had planned it all through—but he was not prepared to be clear with the Australian people about his plan. He campaigned right across the country on the costs of living for motorists.
He said that in one of those New-Age moments for housewives doing the ironing across the country, showing he was in touch. He showed the Australian people he cared about the costs of living. He just did not tell them that he planned to increase their costs of living. He planned to increase their costs of living by increasing petrol tax. He planned to increase their costs of living by reducing the age pension. He planned to increase their costs of living by throwing young people off Newstart. He planned to increase their costs of living by increasing debt on tertiary education.
He planned to increase their costs of living by attacking their costs of living. That is what this Prime Minister planned. He had a clear plan all right; he just was not very clear about it when he was campaigning for high office. He ran the most fundamentally dishonest election campaign in Australian history—an election campaign totally revolving around cost-of-living issues. He promised to reduce the costs of living. All he has done since with every policy he has implemented is increase the costs of living of the Australian people.
He says there is a modest increase in the petrol tax. He says it is small. It raises $2.2 billion. That is not modest. I am the first to acknowledge that that will have a very significant impact on the federal budget but will have a bigger impact on the budget of Australian families. As these Australian motoring groups have pointed out, by 2016-17 the average Australian motorist can expect to pay $142 a year extra because of this government's tax changes.
He campaigned against the carbon price but he did not tell the Australian people he was going to replace it with an increase in the petrol tax. He went off to the United States and told President Obama: 'I'm good on climate change. I've got a carbon tax on steroids.' This is what he was talking about. He was talking about his increase in the petrol tax. He did not say: 'By the way, that carbon price had compensation for low- and middle-income earners. That was a well thought through package.' That said to people on low and middle incomes, 'We are going to help you as we transition to a low-carbon economy.'
Is there a compensation package for the petrol tax increase? I do not think so. There is no compensation package for low- and middle-income earners. It is okay to increase tax without a compensation package but it is a terrible thing to introduce a carbon price with a compensation package! That is the warped and twisted logic we see from this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. This sort of warped and twisted logic saw the Prime Minister last night at a function in Sydney, which I attended together with the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate and the member for Brand, say to the Labor Party: 'Join Team Australia. You have got to be on Team Australia. The way you get on Team Australia is to support our unfair policies.' What sort of warped and twisted logic is that?
It is the same sort of warped and twisted logic that we saw from the Treasurer at the dispatch box when he split the Australian people into 'lifters' and 'leaners'. That is not Team Australia. Team Australia is one team; it is not 'lifters' and 'leaners'. It was an insult to those Australians who commit no crime but to work hard and who need a bit of support.
When the Treasurer said that, I thought it was just showing that he was not in touch with the aspirations and hopes of the Australian people. I thought at least he has come up with an original thought. I have to say, I was wrong because the Treasurer was not even original. He had modified it a little bit but the idea came from elsewhere. There is an organisation in the United States that some members may have heard of; it is called the Tea Party. It has some pretty extreme views and it has adherents to its views who make statements about Americans. There was a high-ranking US politician who categorised the American people. He was a favourite son of the Tea Party and was the Republican candidate in the recent presidential election for Vice President. He said in America there are 'makers' and there are 'takers'. 'Leaners' and 'lifters', 'makers' and 'takers' sounds familiar—it was straight out of the Tea Party copybook.
I gave Mr Ryan credit because he said he made that statement. Admittedly even he was not original. It came from Fox News originally in the United States. But somebody came up to Mr Ryan and said: 'I do not like that "makers-and-takers" categorisation. I think that is pretty offensive to Americans who need a bit of a hand. Are you saying my mother, who is a pensioner, is a "taker" not a "maker" after she has worked hard all her life?' Do you know what Mr Ryan said? Mr Ryan said: 'You are right. I should not have said that. I was wrong. It was insulting and it was offensive. I was wrong to categorise Americans like that. I withdraw those comments.'
Mr Ryan got the insult that he had applied to the American people. Do we see any such grace from this government? Do we see any such acknowledgement from this Treasurer? This Treasurer insulted the Australian people by categorising them into lifters and leaners. He insulted the Australian people when delivering the federal budget. Does he acknowledge his error? No. He says to the Australian people, 'If you are poor, do not worry; you do not have a car. You did not drive so do not worry about the increase in the petrol tax.' He withdrew that for a couple of days and then withdrew the withdrawal, so out of touch is he with the aspirations of the Australian people.
But the most insulting thing of all is not the Treasurer's words but his deeds and his actions. His words are insulting enough but his deeds and his actions are the most insulting. This Treasurer, who was the sidekick of the now Prime Minister, went around Australia campaigning against the carbon price on his deep principles which had been informed by a Twitter question some time before—when he had asked Twitter for advice on what to do about carbon pricing. As the Treasurer has famously been known to say, 'I have got principles and if you do not like them, I have got plenty of others as well.' He is good at plagiarism is our Treasurer. He went around the country campaigning against the carbon price and cost-of-living issues.
The Treasurer is the same Treasurer who came into this parliament and stood at the dispatch box and brought down a divisive budget, an unfair budget and budget fundamentally bad for our economy because he is fundamentally out of touch with the Australian people. We have had a few Treasurers out of touch in this nation and this Treasurer takes the cake. He makes Peter Costello look like he was a touchy-feely in-touch type of guy. This Treasurer has such arrogance that he lectures the Australian people on how they should work longer than anybody else in the world, until they are 70.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
I will check Hansard and see what you said later, Barnaby; you just be quiet. He tells the Australian people that they have to work longer than anybody else in the entire world as he sits in his office bringing down this budget, which has fundamentally divided the Australian people and insulted those Australian people who work hard but who are not of means.
This is a Treasurer who is fundamentally driven by prejudice in a government fundamentally driven by prejudice. As I said before, if this was a budget and a government driven by ideology, I would fundamentally disagree with them. If it was a coherent well-thought-out ideology, I would have my problems with it. I would disagree with it but I would have some respect for it. I have no respect for prejudice. No member on this side has any respect for prejudice. Whether it be racial prejudice or whether it be prejudice against ordinary working people, we will not abide prejudice. We will not abide a Treasurer who divides his country into lifters and leaners. We will not abide a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who say one thing before an election campaign, who run a fundamentally dishonest and deceitful election campaign and who then come into office and say, 'Let's have a mature conversation.'
I will tell you what are mature conversation is code for: a mature conversation is code for 'ignore my deceit'. With this Prime Minister a mature conversation is code for: 'Ignore my deception of the Australian people. I know I deceived do you, I know I have engaged in a fundamentally misleading election campaign but now I want to have a mature conversation.' I will tell you how to start a mature conversation: you start by admitting that you lied to the Australian people in the election.
What I would say to the shadow Treasurer is he has not even attempted to address the substance of the argument that he put forward in this MPI. The member for McMahon has come in here and tried to deliver a lecture about the cost of living. But not once did I hear him raise the carbon tax nor apologise for a carbon tax that delivered a cost impost of $550. The increase to fuel excise needs to be taken into a level of understanding and reality.
In 2001, the level of excise was capped at 38.14c, which was 42 per cent of the price of fuel. Today in 2014, the excise is 25 per cent. The cost increase that will come in on 10 November is 0.0046c. What people are telling me they are more concerned with is the fluctuation in fuel prices at the bowser. And a report that I have pulled down shows a weekly fluctuation in fuel prices across capital cities of 6.4c in one week. In Brisbane it was 11.3c; in Sydney it was 12.2c; in Melbourne, 11.5c; in Adelaide, 10.9c; in Perth, 8.7c, in Hobart, 3c; on the Gold Coast, 16c; on the Sunshine Coast, 7.7c; in Darwin, 17.2c; and in Canberra, 3c. That is just one week's fuel price fluctuation. And we are talking about less than half a cent per litre.
The reality is that this increase will be hypothecated so that all of the money raised will actually go into road infrastructure. It is not like taxes that the former government introduced that were just consumed into consolidated revenue. Being lectured on the cost-of-living increases by the member for McMahon is dishonest in itself. He uses the word 'dishonest' regularly, but it is dishonest in itself. No. 1, he has not apologised for the carbon tax that he voted to support and which he is lining up to reintroduce into the cost-of-living standard for each and every person. The reality is that we will spend every cent of this $2.2 billion on road infrastructure, plus more. In fact, in 2016-17 our spend on infrastructure will be around $8.7 billion in one year alone—$8.7 billion!
Such is the dishonesty of the campaign from the Labor opposition that it has actually flowed through to people in the community. I will quote from an article by Steven Scott in The Courier-Mail today where it says:
Carseldine resident Sonia Sahota, 22, says the price of fuel is "high enough as it is".
Well, I can understand that. The article continues:
The plan will see the fuel excise rise by half a cent—
That is correct—
to 38.6c per litre on November 10.
Then she goes on in the article:
… the current cost of petrol already placed pressure on her weekly budget.
Well, nothing like the carbon tax. The article continued:
The student estimated it cost her $50 to fill up and said she wouldn't support paying an extra two dollars in tax to fill up.
Well, $50 worth of fuel is around 33—let's say 35—litres, which will cost 26c extra to fill up, not $2.
So the carry-on by the Labor opposition about the massive cost increases needs to be brought into perspective. As I said, in 2001, when excise was capped, it was 42 per cent of the price of fuel. Today, because there have been no CPI increases, it sits at a margin of 25 per cent. That is because the price of fuel has increased—massively increased. But as I said, what we need to do is make sure that this measure, which will in part go down to helping pay for the road infrastructure, is committed to do that. And it will be done if the opposition supports it. By bringing this into a tariff measure it has 12 months to be put to the chamber to be voted upon.
This is not without precedent. I sat in this chamber and watch the alcopops debate. That money was not hypothecated for all of it the to go into health—most of it went into consolidated revenue.
That wasn't a revenue-raising measure! It was to reduce drinking rates!
Consolidated revenue! So here we have an honest government introducing a half-a-cent increase in the cost of fuel, hypothecated into road infrastructure spending, and there we had a Labor government increasing alcopops tax and putting it into consolidated revenue. And even though they raised so much tax they still managed to spend more than they could ever raise.
In fact, this is the opposition which, while in government, inherited a $20 billion surplus, no net debt and $45 billion in the bank—$45 billion in the bank! They left a debt for every Australian of around $13½ thousand. So being lectured on cost-of-living pressures by a Labor opposition is kind of like being lectured by Lucifer on fire safety! That is what it amounts to, because they are not honest in their arguments—
Or you on probity! It's like being lectured by you on donations!
What was that? Let me tell you, buckwheat, those same people donated to you and your campaign! So don't you lecture me on that! There is nothing wrong with accepting donations as a federal member of parliament, which you know only too well. So, again, you are being dishonest and deceitful, which is your normal pattern of approach, as it is for the whole of the Labor Party as it mounts its arguments—in particular, in relation to the cost of living and the increase in fuel.
You said there would be no increase taxes before the election!
Don't you tell me about no increase in tax! Remember carbon tax? You actually stood up here and argued for it! You argued for the carbon tax! You argued to increase the cost-of-living pressures by $550 for each and every person.
Opposition members interjecting—
So don't you come in here and lecture me about broken promises!
You've doubled the deficit!
We've doubled the deficit? I think you will find it was actually your patterns and projections that increased the deficit. What we have been trying to do is to pare them back, and you oppose it in each and every way. So whilst you lecture us about economic modelling, the reality is that you do nothing to support bringing down the debt of this nation—that debt per individual—and the interest bill of $1 billion a month alone puts added increased cost-of-living pressure on each and every person.
What I would say to the opposition is to take a reality check. What we should be doing is looking at what we can do to flatten out fluctuations in the cost of each litre of fuel where, as I said, the variations on a day-by-day basis are way more than the cost of increase of this excise. I could understand their argument if, indeed, this money were going into consolidated revenue, which is what happened with every tax increase by the former Labor government. This money is being hypothecated into roads.
In fact, there is so much money being spent—$8.7 billion, as I said in 2016-17—on roads alone. There are roadworks such as the East West Link, which is a $3 billion commitment; Adelaide's North-South Corridor, a $944 million commitment; the Perth Freight Link, now $925 million; the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, now $1.285 million; the Black Spot Program at $564 million; Roads to Recovery at $2.4 billion; the Northern Territory Roads Package at $77 million; the National Highway Upgrade—
What about Paterson? What about the Hunter?
That is because the roads have already been upgraded. They were done by the Howard government in Paterson. The whole of the Pacific Highway has been upgraded in Paterson by the Howard government.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Order! The member for Hunter and the member for Charlton. The member for Paterson has the call.
He's unbelievable! You can tweet that straight away and you can put how you—
Not me.
Sorry—how the member for Hunter did not support money for road works in and around Maitland other than the F3 link which was started and commenced by the Howard government.
Opposition members interjecting—
Oh, you live in a life of fantasy, you live in a life of denial and you do not understand. People across Australia will understand that the price fluctuations in fuel on a daily basis will be much greater than what they will be contributing in a small increase in excise—less than half a cent a litre—on 10 November. I say to people: support this. It will pay for road works, it will make roads much safer and it will provide greater fuel economies as we improve the roads of Australia.
Today, Labor members have been talking about the cost of living and about the pressures that ordinary families face in our electorates and in communities that are represented by people like the member for Paterson. What an extraordinary—indeed surreal—contribution we just heard from that member. I do not think I can say anything more about it, other than to encourage people to check the Hansard. Perhaps Barnaby might help him out on the way through. In that regard he needs some help.
Labor members have been talking about the cost of living pressures. We have been talking about another broken promise in the form of this tax on a tax. We have been talking about this government's contempt not only for the Australian people but also for this parliament. What do we see on the other side? Surrealism, but also a government that is in denial or perhaps simply oblivious to the consequences of its decisions. The Prime Minister said a couple of interesting things in question time today. He said, 'This is a government that understands'—an extraordinary comment in the context of this debate. Then there was a cry for help. He said, 'I think of Labor members. They do not understand the pain it is causing'—relating to tax burdens. I will tell you one thing we understand: we understand this because we are listening to the people we represent. We understand the pain that people are feeling right across Australia in order to maintain decent living standards. We believe that a fundamental responsibility of government is to secure decent living standards today and into the future—and also to maintain a decent environment. I said I was not going to talk about the previous speaker's contribution, but let me just say this. How extraordinary. I think he must have said the words 'carbon tax' 50 times. He did not talk about compensation—funny that.
I also want to talk about something our Prime Minister said before the election. The shadow Treasurer highlighted the gross hypocrisy of government members in saying one thing before the election and doing quite another in government. This is what the Prime Minister said in the Northern Territory as he continued what was his pre-election cost-of-living roadshow:
I am just going to keep doing what I have been doing every day since becoming Leader of the Opposition and certainly every day since this campaign started, focusing on how to reduce the Australian people's cost of living pressures, focusing on how to improve people's job security. I am going to focus on the things that matter to the Australian people …
He has been focussing on the things that matter to Australian people. He has been focussing on making their lives harder and their working lives less secure. This 'age of entitlement' that he speaks of is an entitlement for people like him at the expense of ordinary Australian families. The NATSEM modelling demonstrates the impact of this cruel budget, particularly on communities like the one I represent. He talked about job security. Well, there is very little job security out there in Melbourne's north. In my colleague and friend the member for Calwell's electorate, unemployment in some suburbs is reaching 26 per cent and youth unemployment is higher. And what support do these people get? The cutting of important programs. The proposal that young people would be denied access to any social security benefits for six months is this government's attitude to cost-of-living. I am very pleased to stand-up for my constituent's cost-of-living concerns and to support the member for McMahon's motion. This petrol tax ambush is adding further pressure to cost-of-living pressures on Australians.
Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, promised no new or increased taxes before the election. He has no mandate for this. He has thumbed his nose to this parliament as well as showing his contempt for the Australian people. I say to members opposite, and I hope they will rise to this challenge: if you are believers in this policy, why didn't you put it to the people? And why didn't you respect the parliament? The Scullin electorate includes some new outer suburban communities, suburbs like Wollert, which are poorly serviced—if at all—by public transport. These constituents of mine have no alternative but to drive, whether it be to work or to run errands. I will give the Treasurer a newsflash: these people, some whom are not wealthy, drive cars. They drive them for long distances. They have no choice but to pay, from their hip pockets, for this government's petrol tax ambush. This is a government that talks out of one side of its mouth and says that it is not much to pay. On the other side, it advises that it will be raising $19 billion in additional revenue. The Australian Automobile Association estimates that the average motorist will be paying an extra $142 extra for fuel by 2016-17—my constituents will be paying more than this.
This cynical government is an echo of the Howard government when the former Liberal Party president spoke of a government being mean, tricky, out of touch and dysfunctional. There could not be a more apt description for these people, and the only question that I think voters are asking is, 'Do they care, or do they just not understand?'
I think today reflects just what Labor are about, and that is about leading us into a deep hole of debt and not taking responsibility for their decisions and where they have left this nation.
I am pleased to rise and defend the decision of the government regarding the fuel excise, which was announced in the 2014 budget. Yes, I would highlight to the members opposite that this is not a measure that has ambushed Australian citizens, or blustered into the House as an afterthought. The reindexation of fuel excise is part of our May budget, which contains tough but necessary measures to manage and bring under control the previous Labor government's deficit disaster, which they still fail to acknowledge.
Labor's legacy is well known in this place and throughout the nation. It affects and is felt by all Australians. Let me remind the House: 200,000 unemployed; gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion; $123 billion in cumulative deficits; and, as has been mentioned by members on this side, the world's largest carbon tax. Yet Labor have the audacity to say that the coalition are adding to household pressure. It is a hard to believe, but the reality is that Labor's five record deficits and reckless spending has created an intergenerational debt for many years to come. It is this side of the House that are making the decisions to take responsibility and to reset our future.
We are about fixing the budget. The carbon tax is gone. The mining tax is gone. Now the government continue to enact their economic action strategy to build a strong and prosperous economy and a future that Australians can depend upon. Fuel indexation is a very important structural budget reform that the government do not announce lightly. The coalition government have been up-front about the budget. We announced the measures in the 2014 budget because we wanted to partner with Australia in getting the economy running smoothly. The change in fuel indexation will increase the cost of fuel for a typical household using 50 litres of fuel a week by around 40c per week by the end of 2014-15. This, in my calculation, is roughly around $20 a year. That is 40c per household. The money raised will be diverted directly into building roads and infrastructure, and actually contributing to reducing travel costs for the average Australian.
Now, let us reflect on Labor's legacy in contrast: $1 billion in interest per month contributing to Australia's debt—a debt left to us by the Labor government's mismanagement. Labor's debt did not bring us any investment in future infrastructure. Collectively, 40c per household will generate about $2.2 billion over the forward estimates and around $19 billion over the next decade. It is investment that will go to building our future roads and infrastructure.
We are serious about managing Australia's debt and bringing it under control. Australians know that, although many of Labor's decisions have caused us to arrive in this fiscal situation, responsibility lies with all of us to act sensibly to now bring it under control. The impact on households is modest when we consider the impacts of Labor's deficit. Members opposite have failed to talk about the impact on the carbon tax. As the member for Paterson has already mentioned, there is a vast difference between $20 annually and $550 annually for households. I think Labor need to reflect upon their own policies and their own legacies before they lecture the coalition.
The Hawke government introduced indexation, and it seemed to be a good idea at the time. It is a shame Labor have no good ideas to help manage their debt now. Labor say the fuel excise will add further pressure to Australian households, but what really adds pressure to Australian households is $1 billion of wasted money added to the national debt each month. What would add more pressure to Australian households is the extra $550 of costs to the average household per year that Labor placed on households as a result of the carbon tax.
This is a government that follows through on its promise to build a strong and prosperous nation. It is up-front about that, and about what it is going to do to provide a future for every Australian.
I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance, and it is certainly important to the residents of Lalor. Sixty-six per cent of workers in Lalor use their car to get to work. Like those people who live in the electorate of Scullin, and like the member for Scullin pointed out, my electorate is in the outer suburbs of Melbourne on the opposite side of the city to the electorate of Scullin. In the outer west of Melbourne we have limited public transport. We have incredible high-growth areas where we have affordable housing but limited jobs, which means that we have people travelling a long way to get to work. We have people travelling whilst juggling child care, school drop-offs and the trip to work. They will be hurt by the measures put in place by this government. They will be seriously hurt, and they are feeling ambushed today by this government, because this government promised no new or increased taxes. I ask, as I asked many months ago, was that a solemn promise? Was it as solemn as the no cuts to education promise? Was it as solemn as the no cuts to health promise? It is very difficult these days to tell which promise those opposite meant and which they did not. We hear a lot about the promise they have kept, but the promises they made that they are breaking are mounting up day by day.
The people who live in my electorate are getting more and more cynical about this government. They are very cynical after hearing the campaign the coalition ran on cost-of-living pressures. They are very cynical when they pick up a newspaper to find out that the Treasurer has said that poor people do not drive cars. Sixty-six per cent in my electorate of Lalor, with over 200,000 people, drive cars to work every day. The people of Lalor, of course, are most concerned about the compounding nature of the impacts that they are being hit with in this government's budget, because layer upon layer, each level hurts more and more. This is all in a context where wages growth has been the slowest in 17 years. Yet every day the people are going to be hit harder and harder by the budget that this government is determined to get passed.
I am reminded of the rationale about that budget emergency that the coalition have screamed about in this chamber for months. No-one is swallowing that. The facts have been checked. No matter how many times you try to force feed us we will not swallow it anymore. What is clear, however, are this government's priorities. What is clear from their budget is that the ordinary Australian is not the priority of this government. I go to the Australian Automobile Association which, of course, has had a bit to say today. The Chief Executive, Andrew McKellar, has called the petrol move weak, sneaky and tricky. I think there are many residents of Lalor who would be giving him a 'hear, hear' today, because that is exactly how they feel about this tricky tax on petrol.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not even fess up and admit that the effect of the announcement would be that if the government fails to get its fuel tax legislation passed the collected excise would be handed back not to the millions of Australian motorists who paid the tax but to the oil companies. It reminds me of the GST and what is happening to the premiers and to the states with the notion of, 'We'll do this. We'll cut your funding and we'll blackmail you into a conversation about a GST.' This is exactly the same. This parliament is being blackmailed by bringing this in through regulation with absolutely no respect for the parliament.
If that was not bad enough, we discovered today through the Abbott government's own repeal day documents that the petrol tax ambush will be even wider. The Prime Minister who stood here again in question time today asking for a mature debate has demonstrated that his behaviour is more like a child holding their parent to ransom. Only in this case it is this parliament and the families in electorates all over this country being held to ransom. I stand here on this matter of public importance to say that the people of Lalor will treat this with the cynicism it deserves.
Today we are in this position because the Labor Party has essentially put us in this position. The revenue of this country was decimated by the previous government. They talk about ambushes et cetera, but it was actually announced in the 2014 budget that we were seeking to increase the excise revenue. But the Labor Party and the crossbench have sought to deny us this. We are trying to repair a broken economy that was left to us. We gave them an economy that was in pristine condition. It had no government debt. It had money in the bank. It was considered to be 'the wonder Down Under'. We then inherited a debt heading towards half a billion dollars. We want to fix this, and we are headed towards doing that. What is the alternative if you are continually blocked in your attempts to repair the economy? You have to find another way to do it. This is what we are doing.
The Labor Party continues to talk about cost-of-living pressures. I will go to that in a moment. When the Labor Party last had a real leader in Bob Hawke this is what he did, in conjunction with his Treasurer, Paul Keating. It was the Labor government that first introduced fuel indexation in 1983, recognising that:
By adjusting excises for inflation each half year … the real value of the tax does not change.
That is what Paul Keating as Treasurer said in the Hansard of 10 May 1984. The coalition, like the Hawke and Keating government, recognises that by a reintroducing the biennial indexation of fuel excise to the CPI the real value of the excise will not be increased. This is an opposition that do not understand the economy and are doing all they can to wreck it.
Let's talk about honesty and pre-election promises. Do you remember the many occasions we heard, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? On and on they droned. Then what did they do after the election? They brought in a carbon tax which put up people's power prices by about 10 per cent a year and something like $550 each. Worse than that, as the member for O'Connor reminds me, not only did they increase the price of power and introduce an economy-wide tax through the carbon tax—this is their form—but on 1 July this year that carbon tax, besides going up, was going to hit the diesel fuel of those driving vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. It was going to increase by 6.5c a litre. They were going to increase the price of fuel this year if they were the government. The price of diesel would have gone up by 6.5c a litre if they had have been the government in July 2014.
This is canned hypocrisy at its worst. These are people who said they wanted to increase the cost of alcopops because they wanted to improve the health of young people. Trying to improve the health of young people by putting up the price of alcopop drinks did just the opposite, because they went off and bought bottles of vodka and drank them almost straight. Those opposite got a diminished revenue from alcopops. It was not about health; it was about revenue. They had to get that legislation through this place furtively.
On cost-of-living pressures, it was the opposition Treasury spokesman who brought in Fuelwatch. Then he had Grocery Watch, but let's take a look at Fuelwatch. It was going to cost over $20 million a year to administer it just to watch the price of fuel go up. What sort of exercise is that? They were bringing in an institution that was going to cost millions of dollars to watch the price of fuel go up.
We have a solution with these funds of, as has been said in this place, less than 40c per week. It will be dedicated to road infrastructure. We are desperate in this country for real road infrastructure. We have an infrastructure Prime Minister who is committed to spending, as we heard from the member for Paterson, $8 billion a year on real roads and infrastructure. This is where the money is going to go. We want to repair the budget; they want to wreck the budget. We are not going to let them. We are going to make sure that we can deliver for the Australian people on this issue.
I am really happy to follow the member for Canning. He wanted to take us down memory lane. I ask all here in the House: do you remember that before the last election people went out and campaigned for truth in politics? Do you remember that? What about, 'You need a government you can trust'? I think I heard that one, too. What about the mantra, 'No tax on education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions and no changes to the GST'? That was their mantra. Time and time again, they rattled that off. Who can forget a very sincere-looking Tony Abbott staring down the barrel of some television camera, probably with a new blue tie on, saying, 'I promise no new taxes and no increase to taxes.' That was not all that long ago— only a bit over 12 months ago. The member for Canning wants to take us down memory lane, but I have just rattled off a number of promises already broken by this government's budget. No blue tie can cover up what is being done to the Australian people.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: my tie is orange!
There is no point of order.
This government lied its way into office. Now it expects families and pensioners to pay for their broken promises. That is truth in politics for you! When the next election comes around, ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, do not believe these people here—12 months ago they promised not to increase taxes, but look at what they are doing now. If it were not for the consequences for the mums and dads out there, this would just be a black joke. This government has targeted those least able to afford it to pay for their broken promises.
Today we have seen another ambush. This is a petrol tax. It is a $2.2 billion increase. Without any mandate, without bringing any legislation before this parliament, they are just introducing this petrol tax. I am very proud of my electorate of Fowler. It is a very diverse, very colourful area, but it is an area of great disadvantage as well. People in Fowler will be five times worse off as a result of the government's budget than people in the Treasurer's electorate of North Sydney, the Prime Minister's electorate of Warringah, or the electorate of Wentworth—I note that the member for Wentworth is at the table at the moment. Yet they want to impose more taxes on people from electorates like mine—on the people who can least afford it.
When there was discussion of the impact of fuel taxes on the poor, the Treasurer summarised it for us. He made it very clear. He said that poor people do not have cars and that, if they do, they do not drive too far. I know he got slapped down by the Prime Minister for saying that, but that is what the coalition believe. They believe that people in Western Sydney do not have cars and that, if they do, they do not drive them too far because they do not have much money. This budget slugs the people of Western Sydney more than anybody else. They rely on cars. There is a high unemployment rate in Western Sydney and the people there need cars to get to work because of the lack of public transport infrastructure. That infrastructure needs to be developed. Western Sydney is the fastest growing area in the nation—and the people there need their vehicles. But the government decided to rationalise their decision by saying, 'They do not need their cars because they cannot afford them.'
You only have to look at what the Australian Automobile Association had to say today. I do not know this mob, but they have come out and said that this tax is not only mean and tricky but that, on average, it is going to cost motorists $146 a year. For the people who live in my electorate, where the average household income is $55,000, that is pretty significant. It is a lot for pensioners and for families on tax benefit B. NATSEM has already reported—and I think all members have accepted this—that families with two kids on $65,000 are already $6,000 worse off as a result of this government's budget. Now this petrol tax is being added to that.
Mr Entsch interjecting—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Do not shake your ahead at that! That is an independent finding by NATSEM. You guys know it—and it applies to your electorates as well!
In listening to this MPI debate, I could not help but notice the word 'ambush' being used a lot. I thought perhaps that a definition might be of benefit to members of the opposition. It is hardly an ambush when you come into government and are faced with what you lot left us with. It is our job and our duty as members of parliament to sort that out. What we do to sort that out is hardly an ambush.
I would have thought an ambush was, say, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lecturing the Chinese people in Mandarin. That was probably an ambush, especially considering that it really did annoy them. Probably we could say that Julia Gillard ambushed Kevin Rudd. I think we could say that Julia Gillard ambushed business. We could definitely say that Julia Gillard ambushed the Australian people with 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was definitely an ambush.
What about Swannie?
I think it is fair to say that Wayne Swan, our previous Treasurer—I was going to say that he ambushed the miners, but the way it turned out it would probably be more accurate to say that the miners ambushed him. I think deposit holders, though, could say they were ambushed by Wayne Swan. To have your money taken because you haven't used it for a year or two is a little strong—I call that an ambush. I think people with superannuation could say they were ambushed as well.
I will come to the matter at hand. I just thought that needed straightening out first, because the word seems to be getting thrown around a bit at the moment. I am a member of the Australian government and my first duty is to my country. I also have a huge duty to my electorate. I am embarrassed that we have had to implement this measure—and I am sure every member of the government is embarrassed. But I can only guess how embarrassed Labor must be to have inherited the situation they did and to have then left us in the position of paying a billion dollars a month as a result of their idiocy—behaving like kids in a lolly shop. They were totally uncommitted to Australia. The worst of it is that they threw away $200 billion on things that gave no return to the Australian taxpayer, no return to the Australian people. That is why we have to borrow a billion dollars a month just to pay the interest on what they did.
I want to talk a little bit about the fact that—yes, I think it is true; I know it is true—this measure will cost those of us in regional Australia slightly more. It will cost us more than it will cost city people. Regional Australia is about a third of the population and we will definitely pay more. Someone travelling 400 to 500 kilometres a week to work and back will pay an extra 50c or maybe a dollar in a bad week. Even though we are talking about regional Australians, and I personally represent them in a regional electorate, we have a duty to the country as well. This is a cost we have to bear, and 50c or so a week, despite what the Chief Opposition Whip just said, is as much as it is going to be.
Remember that getting rid of the carbon tax saved regional Australians one heck of a lot more than $550 a year—we get far hotter and far colder so we use far more fuel and electricity than the two thirds of people who live in the major cities. And do not forget that the carbon tax would have been adding 6½c to the cost of every litre if we had been paying that now. So we have 6½c as against half a cent. That was just another one of those ambushes we have been talking about. Yes, I am embarrassed that we have to do this but, by heavens, those opposite must be embarrassed for causing the problem in the first place.
I am not embarrassed at all about letting the member for Calare and others know that this budget and the government's broken promises are a recurring nightmare for my constituents. Just when they thought they had heard it all, they now learn that this government's budget of broken promises and its unfair cuts continue without shame the repeated theme of hurting Australians who can least afford it. Yesterday the Prime Minister's cowardly ambush of the Australian people saw his government bypassing the parliament in order to force onto them this unfair and unwanted petrol tax. It beggars belief that this government continues to push forward with its petrol tax, despite public outrage and despite even the Australian Automobile Association's chief executive, Andrew McKellar—I know he has been quoted by colleagues—
It's gold.
It is gold—the member for Lalor is absolutely right—because Mr McKellar calls this hike a weak and sneaky and tricky action. That reflects exactly what this is—it is weak, sneaky and tricky and it rubs salt into my constituents' wounds because it adds to the growing list of financial pressures and the burden of living costs in what is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged electorates in Australia. People living in my electorate drive cars—we are outer-metro and we drive cars. We need to drive cars. A lot of my constituents may not be very wealthy but they need to drive their car. As if the cost of petrol is not already steep enough, my constituents are now going to be slugged with this unfair petrol tax which the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for. The Prime Minister sought no mandate from the electorate to slug them with this increase in petrol prices.
Since this budget was announced my electorate has faced a continuous onslaught of proposed budget measures that have hurt them and will continue to hurt them significantly. I have spoken about these measures many times before. There is the GP tax, pension cuts, the abolition of Family Tax Benefit B, forcing young job seekers to go without income support for six months at a time, moving young people onto lower income support payments and cutting payments to war veterans—and now we have the fuel tax. My constituents cannot take much more of this. The situation for their family budgets and overall prospects is dire enough without these additional taxes. This is not good news for my electorate, and unfortunately the news keeps on getting worse.
The NATSEM analysis is important in demonstrating exactly what is happening to the people who live in my electorate. According to NATSEM, the average family in Calwell will lose about $783 a year as a result of this unfair budget. I want to go through the budget's average impact in dollar terms in the suburbs and neighbourhoods of my electorate. That is what matters—what matters is how the budget will impact on the people who live in the neighbourhoods of my electorate. Families are looking at a loss of $355 in Tullamarine, $805 in Keilor East, $532 in Keilor, $524 in Taylors Lakes, $571 in Sydenham, where there are lots of young families, $1,226 in Meadow Heights, $544 in Gladstone Park and Westmeadows, $1,364 in Broadmeadows, $1,327 in Campbellfield and Coolaroo, $1,032 in Roxburgh Park and Somerton, and $478 in Greenvale and Bulla. These are costs that the people who live in my electorate cannot shoulder—they cannot afford to be hit with these costs. How much more is this government intending to bleed my constituents? How much more are they going to tax my constituents in order to fill their coffers? It is a legitimate question and I am not ashamed to ask it. (Time expired)
( I spoke on a matter of public importance earlier in the year and I mentioned at the time that I was only new to this place and that MPIs reminded me a little bit of my days at kindergarten. After lunch you would lie down and the teacher would read you a fairytale. Every afternoon I was hearing history rewritten; I was hearing stories—
We've got 'once upon a time' over there.
You are stealing my thunder! Lo and behold, today the shadow Treasurer stood up and opened up the MPI with the words—I kid you not; you could not make this up—'once upon a time'.
The member for Hinkler and I have just been chatting. I know that in question time the member for Wentworth, who is sitting at the table, loves to use a song reference or a literary reference or a movie reference. We were just conferring about whether or not this was a Paul Hogan moment in parliament. 'That's not a knife; this is a knife.' This is not an ambush. This is not a new tax. The carbon tax—that was a new tax. The mining tax—that was a new tax. Fuel tax has been around since Federation. Its structure has changed with time. When you look back at the issue we are confronting now, you see that it was indeed Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who finalised indexation in 1983. Why? It was because he acknowledged that, Australia being a vast country, fuel taxes needed to be spent on roads and they needed to maintain pace in real terms. That is the key here. This is not an increase. It is maintaining real terms. That is the highlight.
There is also a precedent with the mechanism we are using—that being alcopops, of course. As a publican at the time, I did have some sensible and mature debates with customers in trying to sell that puppy. What you cannot walk away from and what the Labor Party failed to get is that the situation we confront as a nation is dire. And it happened on their watch. Every time you raise this, you get the GFC thrown at you. By the end of this financial year we will have $226 billion in net government debt. Tranche 1 of the GFC was $10.4 billion and tranche 2 was $47 million. That is $57.4 billion of $226.4 billion that is directly accountable. And it is non-recurrent expenditure. It was needed at the time, but it does not keep appearing in the forward estimates. The problem we have is a structural budget deficit, not the GFC. That is why we are doing what we are doing. It is still the problem, whether those opposite want to bury their heads in the sand today the same as they did in the last six years.
Last week's fertility rates were scary. The ABS announced a birth rate of 1.88. For those of you mathematically inclined, we need a birth rate in women under 49 of 2.1 to replace ourselves. We are growing the wrong way—we are growing by ageing. There are two categories that give us big trouble—and this happened in six years and unless we do something about it now it will continue to happen and get worse. In 2007, health—actual figures, not budget estimates—was $43 billion. At 2013 actual, it was $64.5 billion. That is a 50 per cent increase in six years under the watch of those opposite. In 2007, welfare was $96.5 billion. In 2013 it was $140.6 billion. That is a 46 per cent increase on their watch. The real problem we have—and this is why fertility is important—is that we have 23.5 million people today and 11.6 million in work. We have 11.6 million people carrying 12 million people. The rate of growth of those in the population aged 65 plus is twice the rate of growth of those in the 15 to 64 bracket. It is going to get worse. When those opposite were in government they missed it and tried to continue to blame—and do today—the GFC. They want to spend $80 billion more than us in the next 10 years on health and education. They want to spend $16 billion more than us in the next 10 years on foreign aid. They want to spend, if you will believe what we are debating today—unless they come to their senses—$19 billion more on roads and not have it funded by this measure. That is a total of $115 billion more that they want to spend. They still have their heads in the sand. The obvious question is: when will you stop playing populist politics, acknowledge there is a problem and either work with us to fix it or come up with some suggestions on how you might fund the extravagant lifestyle you plan to continue post the six years you have just had?
The discussion is now concluded.
The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014 is the second introduced by the government this year. The parliament has introduced such bills with regularity since 1934. They are, as the Bills Digest notes, a matter of 'housekeeping'. These bills correct drafting errors, update cross-references and remove spent or obsolete provisions. These bills serve a worthy purpose—they maintain the tidiness of the statute book. This is an ongoing task for this and other parliaments.
But this is not bold deregulatory reform; it is routine work undertaken by all modern governments. Among other things, this bill fixes an incorrect cross-reference in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994; closes a bracket in 474.258(2) of the Criminal Code; corrects the spelling of 'laminated' in a schedule to the Customs Tariffs Act 1995, which presently reads 'laminiated'; and removes a comma from the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, but adds a full stop to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
The bill inserts gender-neutral language into two acts. I certainly thank the government for this. It has quite rightly been the policy of Commonwealth drafters to use gender-neutral language since 1984. I am genuinely very pleased to see that the Attorney-General has not taken the lead of his LNP counterpart in Queensland, who has recently and controversially returned to gender-specific language in legislation, restructuring the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The use of 'chairman' over 'chairperson' is probably the least of the problems of Queenslanders under Attorney-General Bleijie, but I agree with the many lawyers and citizens in Queensland who have objected to this retrograde step. I thank the Commonwealth Attorney-General for sticking to proper modern drafting practice in this regard.
This bill makes other sundry changes. In a number of acts it replaces the antiquated legal term 'servant' with its modern equivalent 'employee'. Again, this is an uncontroversial drafting point, which the Acts Interpretation Act makes clear is of no substantive legal effect. The bill restructures the Veterans' Entitlements Act for better readability. Again, all of this is worthy. None of it is groundbreaking. This bill is not in any sense 'deregulation'. The inclusion of this routine piece of housekeeping in the government's repeal day stunt beggars belief. It is routine housekeeping which has been the practice of the Australian parliament since the first Statute Law Revision Act in 1934. It has been the practice of the United Kingdom parliament since 1861. It is not novel and certainly not some grand act of deregulation. This bill will not reduce in any measurable way the regulatory burden on any Australian business. It will not remove or streamline any operative regulation. That the government would try to dress this bill up into a grand political gesture shows this government's lack of substance.
The Amending Act Repeal Bill, which is also before the House, follows on from the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Act introduced in the government's last 'repeal day' stunt in March. This bill repeals around 650 amending or repeal acts passed between 1970 and 1979. As the amendments or repeals have already taken place, the effect of these acts is spent. Section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act makes clear that the repeal of an amending or repeal act does not undo its operation. This bill therefore has no effect on the operation of any law.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill claims the repeal of these acts is desirable in order to reduce the regulatory burden and make accessing the law simpler for both businesses and individuals. However, the explanatory memorandum also states that 'the repeal of these acts will not substantially alter existing arrangements or make any change to the substance of the law' and that there is 'no financial impact'. We do not argue with getting rid of regulations that are redundant, no longer enforced and not relevant. It is the same attitude we had while we were in government. We repealed over 16,000 acts, regulations and legislative instruments when we were in office.
Let us not pretend, however, that the removal of these 650 acts that is proposed in this bill does anything to 'reduce the regulatory burden' when the explanatory memorandum to the bill itself says 'the repeal of these acts will not substantially alter existing arrangements or make any change to the substance of the law'. Not a single piece of legislation repealed by this bill has any operation. All of the acts to be repealed have been inoperative for at least 35 years. They do not and cannot have any bearing on the needs of Australian businesses and individuals in 2014.
We will not hear from anyone on the government side in this debate say how the repeal of the Brigalow Lands Agreement Amendment Act 1977 or the repeal of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Amendment Act 1979 or the repeal of the National Fitness Amendment Act 1979 will affect businesses or individuals because the repeal makes no change at all to the substance of Australian law. This bill is nothing more than a stunt to allow the government to claim that it is cutting regulation while not saving any money or removing any operative regulation.
The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 represents an unprecedented initiative of the government to cut $1 billion in red and green tape each year. This coalition government has gone further and more than doubled the target by announcing a net reduction of over $2.1 billion in compliance costs as a result of the 400 proposed measures. This repeal day is part of the coalition's plan to improve and strengthen our economy.
The economic action strategy of this government is indeed making progress. The mining tax has gone and the carbon tax has gone. The government's repeal of the carbon tax and the mining tax has not only reduced cost-of-living pressures and helped create jobs but also saved families and businesses in reduced compliance costs. The budget is bringing expenditure down and restoring the economy after the debt and deficit disaster of the previous Labor government. And continuing on from the autumn repeal day 2014, we are taking scissors to inefficiency and dissolving impediments to thriving business and beneficial reform.
Today, I am pleased to join with the coalition government to introduce legislation to repeal nearly 1,000 pieces of unnecessary legislation and regulations. We are talking about considerably reducing regulatory impediments that are harmful to productivity, deter investment and cost jobs. The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index ranked Australia 124th out of 148 countries for 'burden of government regulation' for 2014. That simply is not good enough. The government is doing something about this.
The business and wider community have communicated for some time and it is very clear in the economy that there needs to be a significant reduction in regulation to improve Australia's productivity and competitiveness. Many of these cuts will benefit the electorate of Macquarie, which is a major region for infrastructure investment, emerging small business, the stunning environment and tourism.
By creating public access to the centralised, online point of access for government services with the myGov account, we make possible a projected saving of $88 million per year. Five million Australians have so far created their myGov account. Similarly, the Australian Taxation Office's new online tax return service, myTax, will save over 1.4 million taxpayers $160 million a year in compliance costs by pre-populating tax returns. A one-stop shop for environmental approvals will save the community $426 million each year and provide an estimated economic gain of $120 billion over the next 12 years. An estimated 447,000 small businesses will benefit from a reduced tax compliance burden with administrative changes to GST and PAYG reporting. That is going to directly benefit small businesses in the electorate of Macquarie. Further, businesses with no GST payable will no longer be required to lodge a business activity statement, saving small businesses more than $67 million each year in compliance costs.
We are creating the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, a national advocate which will also assist in the development of small-business friendly laws and regulations. Small business people around Macquarie, particularly family based businesses, have told me their stories of attempting to make ends meet while struggling with red and green tape. This is why the Commonwealth government is working each day to remove the red tape burdens for small business.
Following the autumn repeal day earlier this year, Jo Bromilow, President of the Blaxland and Districts Chamber of Commerce in my electorate of Macquarie, spoke positively about the optimism returning to small businesses as a result of removing the burden of unnecessary regulations. The chamber president highlighted how reducing the constant usage of paperwork allows small businesses to get on with the job of growing their business.
Small businesses play a significant role in our local regional and national economies. Ms Bromilow said, 'It is already apparent that the optimism is returning to small businesses, which will lead on to employment growth and investment in this crucial area of the economy'. Jo Bromilow, as a distinguished and experienced small business manager in my electorate, understands the positive impacts of reducing the constant usage of paperwork and red tape. Ms Bromilow said it allows small businesses to move forward. We are committed to ensuring small businesses can do more to benefit consumers, their businesses and our economy.
The NBN rollout is moving into full swing within the electorate of Macquarie, and currently many residents in South Windsor and Bligh Park localities are making the transition, with Richmond soon to follow. NBN customers can opt not to have a battery backup installed in their home or business, as many customers can use their mobile phone or generator during a power blackout, saving $21.1 million in compliance costs.
Local clubs and organisations registered as a company limited by guarantee in my electorate of Macquarie—who do so much for the community—and make less than $1 million in revenue, will no longer require an auditor. This was previously required even though audited financial reports were not.
There simply is not the time to list all that is being done with this bill today or all of the direct benefits for business, local organisations and the community at large. Continuing on from the repeal of over 9,500 regulations and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation on the 2014 autumn repeal day—the largest bulk repeal in Australia's history—the government is repealing a further 256 regulations. This will do away with over $700 million of compliance costs. That is $700 million of taxpayers' money that can be reallocated elsewhere: to assist and grow small businesses, to grow tourism in the region, to invest in greater and increased infrastructure, and to help local organisations and communities to prosper. I am pleased to commend the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 to the House.
I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. Australia has been blessed. We have achieved an economic position in the world, built on good fortune, hard effort and a good economic platform built by successive good governments—the Hawke-Keating years and the Howard government. It was supported, at least in the Hawke-Keating years, by a reformist opposition with an eye to the future and what was in Australia's best interest. That is in contrast to where we sit today. The Rudd-Gillard years by comparison not only lacked any agenda to increase productivity; it unwound many of the reforms of the previous 20 years.
Disturbingly, the World Economic Forum tells us that Australia has slipped to 124 out of 148 countries on the burden of regulation table. That is a disgrace. It is a clear illustration of why Australia is losing the manufacturing industry out of Australia today. We are losing projects on a world-wide scale because we have lost our competitive edge. The previous government, the Labor government, in just three years—2010 to 2013—introduced 21,000 new regulations. I am not sure if this is a new record but I certainly hope so and I hope it is not one that is repeated soon.
Last year we had our first repeal day; 10,000 acts and regulations gone—that was 50,000 pages. What an achievement. This time it is 1,000 acts and regulations abolished—7,200 pages and, in total, more than $2 billion worth of compliance burden. For me—one who has railed against stifling regulations—it is an exciting time. It is almost an 'Empire strikes back' moment. It is great to see the little guy get a chance to breathe.
Almost instantly when I walk in the door of a small business, the first thing they tell me—after we say, 'How are you going?' and 'Good morning'—is: 'You have to get the red-tape monkey off our back. We are being strangled by red tape, paperwork, workforce compliance, workforce policies—for almost every conceivable occurrence, no matter how remote the possibility—tax compliance, industry compliance.' I have met truckies who are dazed and confused by loading regulations, driver management rules—sometimes policed by zealots who think the country can run without trucks. I have heard from television aerial installers—this is a good one—who are now no longer able to use a ladder to climb on to a roof unless it is tied at the top. Don't ask me how they are supposed to tie a ladder at the top without climbing the ladder in the first instance. The list goes on and on and, depressingly, on.
So today is instalment 2 of a government finally having a red-hot go at trying to get the red-tape monkey off the back of the citizens of Australia. Huge numbers of useless acts and regulations will be going out the door today, delivering $1.2 billion worth of savings. For instance, the one-stop shop for environmental controls will save $426 million upfront. Even more importantly, it is expected that over the next 12 years we will deliver $120 billion worth of benefit to Australia.
For agriculture—an industry I am vitally interested in—improvements to the farm management deposits, implementing the mandatory port access code, and getting rid of a duplicated cattle-tagging system are just a start, but they will all help.
With simplified documents, there is a huge range of issues covered: simplified documents for marriage certificates, a choice as to whether a consumer has a battery back-up on the premises for a fibre-to-the-node connection to the National Broadband Network, e-tendering for defence supply contracts and simplified paperwork for Job Service Providers all provide savings and efficiencies to individuals, business and government, as will speeding up Export Finance Insurance Corporation approvals and PBS medication charts for public hospitals will save $40 million. These are big figures.
The myGov site will make life easier for welfare recipients and save $88 million, and people will be able to lodge their tax returns on this site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Simplified import permits for defence procurement will save $27 million. Getting rid of the red tape in the VET sector will save $30 million. The government will be reforming the apprenticeship support schemes, aligning state and federal gambling regulation and PAYG thresholds will be adjusted. Better cooperation with the US on tax arrangements will yield $58 million. Duplication for reporting of charities will be reduced. Efic will be simplified and be able to underwrite all supplies and not just capital equipment.
The list goes on but I will hone in on one issue that is of particular interest to me, and that is the move to harmonise Australian design rules with other developed nations' procedures. Last year, I sat on the agriculture committee inquiry into the legislation to amend the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Act. The bill—in the previous government's eyes at least—was aimed to improve efficiency but in fact added considerable cost and regulatory burden to the sector. This government, since that time, has unwound that legislation. But, during the debate, it was made clear to me that Australia faces all kinds of issues in the registration of chemicals for agricultural use in Australia. We think of ourselves as big food producers when in fact we are medium to small food producers. We are big exporters of certain products like wheat, barley, sugar and cotton—even though you do not eat that of course. You may, but it may not be very good for you!
We are big exporters, but we are not a significant market for many other commodities. So when you get a chemical that is registered internationally it costs a lot of money to get it registered in Australia for relatively small markets. As a result of this, Australian farmers are not always accessing the best chemicals on the market. This move that starts to recognise other countries' assurance systems, their registration systems, is a great move for us. It is not in this agvet area yet, but this is one of the things that I will be pursuing, because I believe it is in our benefit. The world is a place that seems to be decreasing in size. We are increasingly linked to our trading partners. We should be recognising each other's standards in the way we do business and in the way we register products. With that, I will commend the bill. I will just point out that this government has commenced this tough job. In contrast to the last six years, where Labor gave us more regulation, more government, more red tape and more strangulation of the economy, it is a breath of fresh air.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. This is another example of this government following up on its election commitments and it follows on our efforts on the autumn repeal day back in March. Fittingly, this spring omnibus repeal day gives us the opportunity to continue the job of the spring-clean of red tape and regulation in our economy. We made a commitment at the last election to cut over $1 billion in red and green tape and with this bill we are continuing to deliver on that commitment. In fact, the reality is that we are more than doubling our commitment by a reduction of over $2.1 billion in red and green tape costs to our economy. With our March repeal bill we repealed some 10,000 pieces of regulation and some 50,000 pages of legislation, removing some $700 million of compliance costs.
This is the first time ever that we have had the two repeal days in the one year. You might ask why this is important. It is important because we need to deregulate to free up the productive sectors of our economy to achieve and grow for the future benefit of this country. This is important because the previous government left us a legacy of red tape and regulation by introducing more than 21,000 additional regulations. In addition to that, there were over 80 examples of noncompliance or exemption from regulatory impact statements in those legislative processes. As a result of the inaction towards reduction of red tape and green tape by the previous government in the years from 2007, multifactor productivity declined by some three per cent.
It is worth noting that in the Financial Review today there was an article about a report that has been released by Deloitte Access Economics, and I will quote from that. It is titled 'Red-tape staff cost $250 billion' and it reads:
A growing thicket of business red tape is creating a new class of workers devoted solely to complying with rules and regulations, potentially costing the economy more than $250 billion a year.
Deloitte Access Economics reveals more than one in 11 Australians are now employed in compliance jobs such as office managers, inspectors, public relations and occupational health jobs.
So it is no wonder we have seen that decline in productivity. This is despite the promise by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, in 2007 of a one regulation in, one regulation out policy and the then small business minister, Mr Emerson, saying in 2008 that Labor would 'take a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that is strangling small business'. I would suggest you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, that those scissors went well and truly missing during their term in office and it has taken a coalition government to pull them out of the cupboard, dust them off, sharpen them up and get stuck into the job of reducing red tape and regulation in our economy.
A number of speakers have already focused on the important needs of small business. Why is that? It is because 94 per cent of all businesses in Australia based on turnover, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are small businesses. They also make up 99 per cent of the some 816,000 employing businesses in Australia. They employ approximately 4.5 million Australians, or 43 per cent of the private sector workforce. Interestingly, this is down seven per cent on what it was prior to the election of the previous Labor government. This government has made it well and truly clear over the past 12 months or so, and even prior to that, the importance of small business to our economy and to employment, growth and innovation. Part of the process of this repeal of red tape and regulation is to ensure that we free up that productive and innovative capacity in our economy.
The Productivity Commission has also estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP, further identifying importance of going ahead with our deregulation agenda. What is interesting is that if you take the figures from this Deloitte Access Economics report, the reality is that red tape and regulation, both the government level and in the corporate sector, could amount to as high as 15 per cent of gross domestic product. What an enormous drag on our economy.
As with other activities already undertaken by this government, including getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax, we are continuing well down the road on our deregulatory agenda. Just briefly in summary, some of the things we have looked at is minimising and simplifying the interaction with government; reducing regulatory obligations and reporting requirements; fuelling economic growth by a one stop shop for environmental approvals based on agreements with every state and territory that alone is estimated to save some $426 million; and making it easier to provide direct finance to our exporters, where we generate an enormous amount of our national wealth.
There are also a number of common sense reforms: Australia were now accept products, systems and services that have been approved overseas under trusted international standards or risk assessments; NBN customers will be able to opt out of having a battery backup installed in their home; the extension of the Do Not Call Register is now indefinite—people will not have to renew at every eight years; beef producers exporting to the European Union will no longer have to tag their cattle with additional tags; for those who love to ride motorcycles—not that I am one of those—they will no longer require a modification to be fitted with an Australia-specific rear mudguard, bringing Australia into line with United Kingdom, France and Germany. That alone is estimated to save the motorcycle industry some $14.4 million in compliance on manufacturing costs. Local clubs and organisations registered as a company limited by guarantee with revenue of less than $1 million will no longer require an auditor where that has been previously required, even though audited financial reports were not.
This omnibus bill I highly commend to the House, as it continues to pursue the deregulatory agenda that this government has set out to free our economy up to be productive, innovative and grow for the future benefit of all Australians.
It is great pleasure that I rise to speak on these repeal provisions. Upon reading them a phrase sprung to mind, which is one of those few lovely phrases from Latin at creeps into the law and that you actually remember. The phrase is: 'de minimis non curat lex', which means, in effect, that the law does not concern itself with trifles. In legal principle it essentially means that the law will not usually remedy the injury of an immensely minor type, nor will it make continuous judgements in respect of what are contextually very minor issues. That is a particularly helpful principle to govern the conduct of the law, but it is a terrible principle to govern the conduct of economies.
Having watched this debate occur twice now on two separate repeal days, I must say I have been somewhat surprised by the very strident negative approach taken by members opposite.
No, it is that you are dressing it up …
It is something that most people seem to agree is a very good thing, so we have a range of very strong endorsements outside of this place for the agenda. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australia's largest and most representative business organisation, strongly supports the government's initiative to cut red tape and undertake legislative repeal days. Repeal days just like this one. The basis—as the member for Perth in her very casual and low-key way noted by interjection!—of Labor's surprisingly strident opposition is essentially twofold. The first is that what is contained in this swathe of repeal legislation is just too minor to be bothered with. The Manager of Opposition Business said things such as 'so much hype over so little'. He described it as 'vacuuming the spare room that nobody walks into anyway'. Of course, this was a theme continued by the member for Isaacs, to the effect that all this does is do things that governments usually do, which is to repeal, remove or fix very, very minor problems in legislative instruments. Of course, that is part but only part of what is being done. The only other argument being offered by Labor is, to the extent that there is anything important in this, they did it anyway and did it as a matter of routine. I will address that second argument in a moment.
With regard to this notion that all that is being done is minor, it simply does not bear proper scrutiny when you actually look at what is happening here. The fact is that, yes, there are some matters which would be described as de minimis, and you have got regulatory wolves in this menagerie. You have rats and mice and you even have a few fleas. The member for Isaacs spent many minutes concentrating on the fleas, but the fact is that there are some very significant savings and changes which will help business across Australia. In the first tranche of reforms we had the incredibly substantive removal of a singularly damaging piece of duplication in the environmental sphere. Having a situation where you can have the regulatory assessment of environmental matters according to state legislation and the federal version of that legislation done at one time by one organisation will save $426.3 million a year. That falls certainly into the category of a regulatory wolf or maybe even a tiger: something that is terribly damaging and dangerous to the economy. Then in this tranche of repeals we have other very important matters. The idea now that Australian business will be able to accept products, systems and services that are approved overseas under a trusted international standard or risk assessment is going to be a very significant plus for business.
But, yes, in amongst all of this there are many other smaller, more modest changes, but the point about regulation is that it is the cumulative effect of the regulation that has to be constantly and continually tackled. We are tackling here both the big-ticket items and the composite and cumulative effects of all the minutia which in its cumulation causes immense difficulties. Labor's position seems to be this: there is no point, and we should roundly criticise the person who removes the barnacles from the hull because the things are just so small. But the point is the cumulative effect of all the things that are being done here has a reverberatory effect throughout the economy. There is also the fact that there are some very major and big-ticket items that are being removed.
I will address the second point of Labor's argument—which is completely inconsistent with their first—which is that none of this is really worth doing to any extent but, to the extent that it is, Labor did it anyway. The fact remains that there is probably one genuinely bipartisan measure that both parties have said is a good measure of the regulatory burden, and that is provided by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It looks at regulatory and economic burdens and failures across a range of categories in 144 countries. The Economist Intelligence Unit said that, looking at 144 countries across the world, when you look at the burden for government regulation, when the Howard government finished its term in office Australia was 60th out of 144 on the burden of government regulation. After Labor's time in office we had sunk to 96th out of 144 on the burden of government regulation.
The question begs: if Labor did all this and their deregulatory agenda was so fine, so good and achieved so much with so little fanfare, why was their performance on the best possible measure so terrible? Why did we slip from 60th in the world on the regulatory burden of government to 96th over their period in government? The answer must surely be that they simply did not do enough and that their attitude and culture around these things was not strong enough. That has been very significantly repaired by this government and by the parliamentary secretary, who is doing a very fine job.
I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this bill, which I and I think many others in this House today believe is important to constituents Australia-wide who seek to reduce the burden and cost of regulation—and that is all of us, including those opposite, I am sure. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 is a whole-of-government initiative to amend and repeal legislation in a number of areas.
Today we have heard the other side say there is no value in this bill. I say they have not looked very hard to find that value. If they had done so, they would have noticed a whole raft of amendments. The bill deals with generally benign measures—yes, we agree with that—in order to reduce the regulatory imposition on business, individuals and the community sector, but there are many other, more substantive matters as well. The repeal will make regulation easily accessible, meaning business, individuals and community organisations can spend more time doing what is important for them and less time trawling through regulation and some of its more ridiculous demands.
The omnibus bill deals with a wide range of legislation, in many cases repealing legislation which is no longer relevant, in approximately nine areas. We have seen amendments in the areas of agriculture, immigration and border protection, industry, Treasury, veterans' affairs—even the Prime Minister and Cabinet area gets a haircut. I have a particular focus and objective in recognising and assisting small business to reduce costs and the regulatory burden and to increase efficiency, productivity and competitiveness. We all know that, when small business is not focused on regulation, it can spend more time on business itself.
This government is determined to be a smaller, less interfering government, and this latest reduction in red tape is moving us all in the right direction, especially for the business community. The government does not run small businesses. It has a responsibility to provide the right legislative environment to help improve the business community, not be a hindrance, not be a blocker but be an enabler.
I would like to focus a little on some of the improvements for the small business sector, and it is pleasing to see the Minister for Communications sitting in the House today, because communications is one area I would like to focus on. Schedule 2 will amend legislation in the communications portfolio to streamline statutory consultation and publication requirements and repeal spent provisions. Part 1 deals with the provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that are redundant now and say that the SBS undertakes television production and supply previously undertaken by the National Indigenous Television Ltd Part 2 will deal with provisions in the communications portfolio requiring rule makers to consult before making certain legislative instruments. This is all very sensible and noncontroversial. Simply, there is a reduced requirement to consult, impacting small business in the communications sector and removing a requirement for ACMA to publish notices in the Gazette; rather, they may use their website, making notification quicker for entities and speeding things up, thereby creating efficiencies and reducing costs.
Now let us have a quick look at the environment. The schedule will repeal and amend provisions in the acts administered in the environment portfolio, making technical amendments to streamline regulatory arrangements. Two items which will reduce the burden for small business are as follows: removing the requirement for duplicate approvals when moving hazardous waste through Australia—hardly rats and mice, I would say—and enabling information relating to the export of hazardous waste to be published on a website rather than the onerous, old-fashioned paper publication requirement. This will remove a compliance burden for hazardous waste exporters. Other items will ensure hazardous waste permit processing can be done more efficiently, reducing the cost to business.
With respect to social services, a notable change is the lower reporting requirements for aged-care providers. This will be extremely well received and is welcome.
A little bit about Durack: we all know that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy, and I am committed to reducing red tape in the sector. The Productivity Commission released in its report in 2013 some commentary on small business that is worth repeating here today:
Small businesses feel the burden of regulation more strongly than other businesses. Almost universally, their lack of staff, time and resources present challenges in understanding and fulfilling compliance obligations.
… … …
Australian studies have found that small businesses spend, on average, up to 5 hours per week on compliance with government regulatory requirements and deal with an average of six regulators per year.
The omnibus bill will have a positive impact on more than 13,500 small businesses in my electorate of Durack which includes the Kimberley, the Pilbara, Gascoyne, the Midwest and the northern wheat belt. Do not forget, many businesses in remote and regional areas of Durack are owner operated, one-person shows. Most of the towns in Durack have commerce or small business organisations and wherever I go in my massive electorate the message is always the same: 'Get rid of the compliance; get rid of the impediments. Help us make ends meet and get customers coming through the doors.' I met with small business organisations recently in Moora and Merredin; and also with John Lally, CEO of Karratha District Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Rob Jefferies, CEO of the Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and Geoff Herbert, President of the Onslow Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They are all concerned with the current requirements on small business and look forward to a reduction of unnecessary red tape.
It is absolutely essential to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia; we have heard that a lot. It is essential to strengthen our rural and regional communities, which of course is our policy. Today we are working at removing nearly 1,000 pieces of legislation and regulation as part of this spring repeal day.
To finish off, here are a couple of quotes from people who have an interest in this matter. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, Deidre Willmott, who is well known in government circles and well informed on the burden on business of overregulation, says:
Western Australian business owners are amongst the cleverest people going around, with a track record of world leading innovation. However, their ability to compete and succeed on a global scale is being hampered by the amount of time and energy they need to spend navigating convoluted, time consuming regulatory processes across multiple layers of government.
And one last quote from Reg Howard-Smith, who is the Chief Executive of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, who agrees:
The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia welcomes the Federal Government's attempts to repeal unnecessary red-tape and duplication.
In particular the resources sector urges all parliamentarians to support the one-stop-shop proposal for environmental approvals.
Despite concerns raised by environmental lobby groups, the one-stop-shop will not see a 'watering down' of environmental standards.
As someone who has worked in the mining industry for many years and has firsthand experience in navigating the torturous environmental approvals battlefield, I believe anything we as a government can do to reduce time frames and get projects off the ground is good for us all. I commend this bill to the House.
It gives me real pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, and associated bills. I would like to associate my comments with all of those made on this side of the House today. The very varied contributions made by so many people illustrate the work that has gone into discovering those little things that are, as Christian Porter mentioned, the barnacles on the hull.
The member for Lyons knows to address members by their proper title.
I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are indeed the barnacles on the hull of small business and of families. I do my best when I am travelling around an electorate that is not as big as the member for Durack's electorate but one which is, in the Tasmanian context, a large electorate; I try to listen to the small businesses and families that make up that electorate. The small businesses owners, and the employees within those small businesses, are not usually members of unions. That is perhaps one of the reasons why those opposite take so little interest in genuine attempts by this side of government to improve and remove the red tape that is literally suffocating small businesses all around Australia. The contribution from six years of Labor was 21,000 new regulations. It was going to be one in, one out; but 21,000 new pieces of red tape and regulation were introduced during the six years of the previous government.
Small business is indeed in our DNA. A local businessman said to me recently he is not sure that the community fundraising event he has been involved with for nearly 20 years will continue any longer. The event's organisers, all volunteers, have been struggling for several years with the increasing burden of red tape and mountains of applications and forms they now face to get this community event off the ground. Committee members have just about run out of time and energy for the paperwork. It will be red tape that sees many successful community events shut down.
One of my staffers was telling me recently about her 91-year-old father who happily and healthily lives on his own—except for the growing mountain of paperwork that faces him every time he attempts to seek out services to make his life a little easier. It is government getting involved with people's lives. On this side of the House, we want to get out of government; we want to be a small government. A hospital visit, for example, for a minor procedure required 20 or 30 pages of forms to fill out. A change to his Veterans' Affairs pension required 20 or 30 pages of questions to be answered, even though he had answered the questions before on a number of occasions.
We have all heard stories of regulations gone crazy so that we sometimes feel that we are being strangled by paperwork. That is why it is a wonderful thing that the government is doing for Australians with the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. This is the second such day, which we have promised will be twice-yearly events in parliament focused solely on reducing the compliance burden on individuals, businesses and the not-for-profit sector. I want to acknowledge the work done by all the federal government ministers in bringing to fruition this bill, which will amend and repeal legislation across nine portfolio areas, and the work done by parliamentary secretary Frydenberg to bring this all together. It is a work in progress, because we will not stop until duplication and unnecessary legislation is minimised.
The government has announced more than 400 new measures to cut red tape across the board, from environment to education, health to human services, and Treasury to trade. We are honouring a promise to the Australian people made at the time of last year's election when we said we would cut red tape costs by $1 billion. I am pleased to stand here today and say that the repeal measures thus far will total over $2.1 billion net in compliance costs.
Today, in the second repeal day so far, the government introduces legislation to repeal nearly 1,000 pieces of legislation and regulations and 7,210 pages on the statute books. That is on top of the nearly 10,000 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts of parliament that were removed on the government's first red tape repeal day in March this year.
Some of the key reforms from this bill, which will directly benefit the constituents of my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania, include those to do with small business and also the aged-care sector. An estimated 447,000 small businesses nationally will benefit from a reduced tax compliance burden with administrative changes to GST and PAYG reporting. Businesses with no GST payable will no longer be required to lodge a BAS statement. These measures will save small business an estimated $67 million in red tape, which small business operators in Lyons will applaud. I look forward to hosting the Minister for Small Business Mr Billson in a few weeks on the east coast of Tasmania. I know the small business people in that part of my electorate are indeed looking forward to the minister's visit.
Aged-care providers will no longer be required to notify the Department of Social Services—and I note the minister is in the chamber—of key personnel changes unless changes materially affect the provider's suitability to provide care.
Close to my heart are reforms to both the higher education sector and the agricultural sector. Universities are being saved $2.1 million in compliance costs by not being required to complete the Sustainable Research Excellence—SRE—staff hours survey to measure how university researchers balance their time between research and other activities over a two-week period; just pure bloody-mindedness. This was a ridiculous form of regulation, and its scrapping will be applauded by the University of Tasmania's staff, who are looking for ways to save costs. Instead, they can spend money on expanding student services.
Australian beef exporters exporting to the European Union, of whom there are many in my electorate, will no longer have to tag their cattle with lime green tail tags for the European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme. The reason for this is that we have electronic tags now, and they have been in operation for many years. This will save beef farmers about half a million dollars a year—barnacles on the hull, indeed.
I congratulate my parliamentary colleagues, all of whom worked so hard to produce this common-sense round of reforms, and I commend the bill to the house. I would encourage those opposite, and I would be very interested to see whether the member for Indi and the member for Kennedy, who are most interested in agriculture, support this deregulation measures. The member for Denison must hear from the many small businesses in his electorate in my home state about the burdens that are imposed on small business. I encourage him to support these changes. The member for Fairfax is a businessman in his own right—we all know that—and I encourage him to support these measures as well. I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and other associated bills. About a fortnight ago I attended the southern Sydney volunteer awards, where I was very proud to hand out the major prize on that day. Amongst the audience were many wonderful volunteers in our society. There were people who volunteered in lifesaving; in the Rural Fire Service; in aged care; and helping our kids with disabilities. On that day the overall prize winner for the best team of volunteers was a group called the form fillers. Their job, their volunteer service to our community, was to help people to fill out government forms. Out of all the valuable efforts of volunteers in our society that was considered the most important service that could be done in our local area. It was a team of 14 people. It is not to question or belittle the great work that they have done in any way but to raise the issue, the problem that we have in this nation—overburdensome government regulations and red tape.
To see the serious problem we have in this nation, we need look no further than the recent study on global competitiveness by the World Economic Forum. Out of 148 nations surveyed on the burden of government regulation, unbelievably, Australia was ranked 124th. So there are 123 other nations that have less burdensome government regulations than we have. The few nations that we were in front of included the Islamic Republic of Iran, which we tied with.
This is not something we should be laughing about, because this government regulation directly affects our economic prosperity and our wealth creation. During the recent MPI, we had members from the opposition coming in here and whinging about how there had been very low real wages growth. The reason for that is that we have not had the productivity increases. While we continue to burden our businesses, especially our small businesses, with more and more red tape, we prevent them from getting on with the job of creating wealth and creating those new businesses that drive our prosperity.
During this debate, I think we have seen perhaps the greatest evidence of the difference between our side and those opposite. The opposition have come in here and ridiculed this legislation. We know the record of the previous government. They used to boast about the number of regulations they had brought in. They actually thought it was a good thing that they brought in 21,000 new regulations. They thought this was wonderful. The simple difference is that the opposition, the modern day Labor Party, believe in central planning. If only they could get another team of government bureaucrats to go into that business to sort them out, to give them more red tape, things would be so much better! After six years of that, what have we seen? As this has always done throughout history, it has ended in tears. The unemployment queues in this nation are 200,000 people longer than when the previous Labor came to office.
Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best when he said: 'That government is best which governs least'—and that I agree with. Just look at the disaster we have had as a result of previous government intervention. There is a thing called Maudlin's law, which says that for every leftist piece of government law introduced in a hurry to try and address some perceived crisis or remedy there will be at least one or more unintended consequence that has an equal or greater negative effect. This is what we saw during the previous six years. We saw the mining tax, which was supposed to create this wonderful revenue, cost our ATO $50 million in just establishing the compliance requirements—and it hardly collected more than that. We saw the carbon tax, which was designed to lower pollution. But after the carbon tax was implemented, it actually increased air pollution in Western Sydney, my area, to above World Health Organisation standards.
This is a very important piece of legislation before us. We must wind back the ever-growing burdensome obligations upon our business community, especially our small business community. We must have faith in them. We must free their hands to let them get on with the wealth creation that will drive the prosperity of this nation into the future. After all, as a nation, we now have to find $1 billion every single month, $33 million a day, just to pay the interest on the previous government's debt—and most of that goes overseas. We have to start clawing that back. The only way we can do it is by increasing the productivity of this nation, and that starts by this government reducing the burden of red tape that has been placed on our business community. I proudly commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to add my voice to the many in support of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills and to indicate my very strong backing for the government's commitment to cutting red tape. This package of Spring Repeal Day bills builds on the Autumn Repeal Day legislation and brings the total in red tape savings to $2.1 billion. This is more than double our election commitment to slash red tape by $1 billion.
Earlier this month, I hosted a number of listening posts throughout my electorate to talk with local residents directly about the things that matter most to them. Overwhelmingly, the underlying message is that they want the government to make things simpler, rather than more complicated. They want to be able to get on with their working lives, they want to run their business or they want to volunteer at the local charity or sporting club, without having to wade through paperwork and without having the burden of regulation to make simple tasks difficult.
During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, members opposite used to brag about the amount of legislation that was passed through the House. Indeed, in just over five years, Labor managed to introduce around 21,000 new regulations—but so much of it was unnecessary. I am a firm believer in smaller government. There isn't time in today's debate to go into a philosophical debate about the role of government, but the notion of smaller government is at the heart of the coalition's policy approach. And I think everyone on this side of the House is excited about the fact that, while we are in office, there will be two sitting days every year dedicated to repealing the legislation and regulations that do not serve a positive purpose and that only add to the red tape which individuals, businesses and community groups have to deal with. This legislation will help ensure that, over time, the burden continues to be lifted and that we streamline the work of government into the future. What's more, the coalition is committed to a new approach with every piece of legislation or proposed regulation that we put forward. We must first ask: what is the purpose, cost, and impact on productivity of proposed initiatives before regulating? Only after these questions are answered and only when it is absolutely necessary will we proceed to regulate.
I did want to speak very briefly about the nature of the changes today. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 implements 38 measures across nine portfolios. The changes are diverse and give effect to a range of deregulation measures announced since the Autumn Repeal Day. Just one example is the implementation of the government's response to the Review of the Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme. The changes to the scheme include removing the costly and time-consuming requirement for builders to be certified to Australian Standard AS4801, or equivalent, prior to applying for scheme accreditation. Unaccredited builders will now have the opportunity to undertake Commonwealth funded building work where they are in a joint venture with an accredited company and operate under the partner's scheme accredited systems. As well as reducing barriers to entry, this change will assist builders to experience best practice safety approaches. A new risk based compliance model will be introduced to better target audit resources at companies requiring support, while reducing the compliance burden for high-performing companies. These measures are expected to lead to savings of $9.7 million in the first year in compliance costs.
One other example—and this one is somewhat reminiscent of an episode of Yes, Ministeris that these bills will also abolish the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which, astonishingly, has never met since being established in 1991. After 23 years of inactivity, largely because successive governments have had a policy of direct industry consultation, it is definitely time to disband this body. Similarly, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group and the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council will both be replaced by direct industry consultation. These are just a few examples; other speakers in this debate have outlined some of the many others.
The bottom line is that our government will continue to work its way through the tangle of red tape and regulation in order to deliver cost savings, which ultimately result in more efficient government and more productive business and not-for-profit sectors. This will improve competitiveness, help create more jobs and also lower household costs—which is great news for my constituents on the southern Gold Coast, as it is for all Australians. I commend these bills to the House.
As long as night follows day there will always be regulations in our society. Whether you work for the public sector, the private sector or for a not-for-profit organisation, you will not escape bureaucracy and you will not escape regulation. That is the reality of business and it is the reality of government. I see the parliamentary secretary in here and I know it is his mission to make it less of a reality and to provide the necessary avenues to enable business to get on with business.
I do not make this statement as a means to criticise either concept, because each has its place and plays an important role in reviewing the work of individual employees and businesses or government markets as a whole, while holding those who do not meet the required standards to account. But while some regulation and bureaucracy is essential for best practice, this government has found thousands of pieces of unnecessary regulation across all government portfolios, and they are strangling the ability of both government and business to work effectively and efficiently. For every piece of unnecessary legislation, hundreds of valuable hours, depending on the size of the business or the department, are wasted every year in employees' time filling in unnecessary and often duplicative administrative paperwork, costing productivity and therefore profit margins much more.
Of course, members in this place know and businesses know that when you hear the word 'regulation' the first word that comes to mind is 'Labor'. As a businessman of 25 years in industry, one of the things I knew, and all businesses knew, was that when the Liberals got in, business was enabled; and when Labor got in, business was disabled. We just had to live in that cycle. That is what the parliamentary secretary has recognised and he has made it his mission to make sure that small business, particularly in Australia, is enabled.
Throughout history, every time the Labor Party has formed government it has systematically destroyed our economy by cash-splashing on ill-informed policies—policies that I can simply highlight: the mining tax, which those opposite could not manage to raise any revenue from, and the carbon tax, which increased costs for every business and household across Australia. These two taxes alone constituted 29 different acts and 1,625 pages of additional burdensome regulation and legislation. They are both gone now: gone from this place and gone from the Australian economy.
This government has promised to cut $1 billion in red tape each year, and the only thing those opposite spent their time doing was imposing onerous red and green tape on businesses who had much better things to do than waste their time and their money filling in duplicative administrative paperwork that benefited no-one. Members in this place know that while Labor has been incapable of supporting business productivity throughout history, no Labor government had ever before reached the level of incessant failure that was seen under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Twenty-one thousand pieces of additional regulation: that is the only legacy those opposite can claim. I remember back in 2007 when I ran in that campaign, it was one in, one out and it certainly did not happen once those 21,000 regulations came in from the Labor government during that period of time. I think it was about one to 104—104 in and one out. That is a legacy that I would be embarrassed about, and I would not be standing in this place trying to justify it—as we have seen from every Labor speaker who has spoken on these bills.
On this side of the chamber there are former business operators, fine men and women who understand business. They understand the economy and they understand that where money and time is wasted, it costs Australia's economy as a whole.
I know that the member for Robertson is dying to speak on this bill. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on the great job he is doing in repealing legislation and regulation in Australia to enable business. I commend these bills to the House and welcome the next speaker.
I rise to support this very important second red tape repeal day and, in doing so, commend these bills to the House, because lifting the burden of red tape and regulation will make life easier for residents and businesses on the Central Coast.
Let me give you some examples in the time remaining. For individuals in my electorate of Robertson, we have made it easier for them to get in touch with government services by simply creating a myGov account. With the click of a button there is a centralised online point of access. I understand that more than five million people have already registered. In fact, one of the people to sign up recently was Nicholas Staniford from Killcare, who has told me how much easier it is to have everything in the one place and how he does not need to have several different websites with different passwords. We are also enabling people to complete their tax returns faster. The online myTax system will save over 1.4 million taxpayers nearly $160 million a year in compliance costs by pre-populating their tax returns. Another local resident, Leon Manuela, who is 22 years of age and lives in Tascott, said that for many young people on the Central Coast it has made doing their tax a lot less stressful.
The electorate of Robertson is home to many high quality and innovative aged-care providers. With nearly 20 per cent of my electorate in the over-65 age cohort —the seventh highest in the country—aged-care care providers are an integral part of our community. So, on this important red tape repeal day, I am pleased to say that we have removed the requirement to notify the department of any changes in key personnel within 28 days of the change. Instead, providers will only need to tell the department about a change of circumstances that materially affects the provider's suitability to provide care. Jennifer Eddy, the Chief Executive Officer of Woy Woy Community Aged Care, advised me that far too much time has been spent with excessive and inconsistent reporting and duplication of information to government departments and this is taking time away from the key role of delivering care to residents. Jennifer said that people looking at aged-care services are becoming more discerning because of the cost, which makes it even more important that aged-care services have the time to provide quality care.
It is a similar situation for small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy, particularly on the Central Coast. So to help businesses focus on what they do best, we have removed the requirement to lodge a business activity statement for 32,000 businesses where no GST is payable. A further 447,000 businesses with minimal income are now exempt from pay-as-you-go requirements. Many people living on the peninsula will know Bremen Patisserie at Umina Beach. I dare say many from around Australia will know of Ron and the family business, because last year they were the national award winner for gourmet pies in the Great Aussie Pie Competition. Ron's success as a small business owner speaks for itself. Still, because of the need to stay on top of the red tape and regulation, his wife Helga stays up from 9 pm to l am to complete book work and paperwork. It is not an easy job for anyone, but especially not for a business that starts baking at the crack of dawn. That is why this government is working to lift this burden by having two repeal days every year to tear up unnecessary regulation. We have heard the voice of the community and they agree with us too. Many of these repeals were actually suggested by people, and also business and community groups, and I commend the bills to the House.
I hate to interrupt the member for Robertson but, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I call the parliamentary secretary.
It is a great privilege to provide the summing up to these repeal day bills that we have been debating today: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014. I thank members on this side of the House who contributed to the debate—the member for Robertson, the member for Swan, the member for Grey, the member for Forde, the member for Bradfield, the member for Dobell, the member for McPherson, the member for Mitchell, the member for Macquarie, the member for Durack, the member for Hughes and the member for Lyons—and members on the deregulation committee on the coalition side: the members for Reid, Bass, Ryan, Deakin, Hindmarsh and Pearce. In every case members on this side of the House gave constructive, concise and comprehensive speeches about why deregulation is important for the future of this country and the health of our economy. We on this side of the House know that cutting red tape matters. It matters to the lives of individuals, the lives of families, the lives and work of small businesses and of course the lives and operation of the not-for-profit sector.
The Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill will make accessing our law easier. The statute law revision bill will improve the usability and accessibility of our legislation. The omnibus repeal day bill will see, just like the Commission of Audit tasked us to do, the abolition of bodies that are no longer required. The Fishing Industry Policy Council, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group and the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council will all now be abolished. We will also allow ACMA to publish their changes using online services by making amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act. Fuel suppliers and producers around this country will now no longer have to go through the additional requirement of submitting an extra annual report to the Department of the Environment, given that they are already putting in monthly reports.
As we heard from the member for Robertson, aged-care sector processes will be streamlined, thanks to the great work of the member for Menzies, the Minister for Social Services, who is sitting at the dispatch box here. He has ensured that key personnel are not required to phone when there is a change among the many aged-care providers of this country. They are not required to make a phone call to the federal department to say that a nurse has been hired or fired. Last year there were 10,000 such calls. We now will no longer need that red tape requirement.
There are significant changes in these three bills that we have brought on for debate and will vote on now, but they are just a small part of the more than 400 individual measures that we have outlined as part of our repeal day process, with the first repeal day in March and the second now on 29 October. Let me give the headline number—the achievement that the member for Watson hates to hear. We have been responsible for $2.1 billion worth of compliance savings. From agriculture to education, from health to human services and from trade to Treasury we have been responsible for significant red tape cuts right across the economy.
And it matters. That is why groups like ACCI, the Business Council of Australia, Universities Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Minerals Council of Australia have applauded the coalition for taking deregulation seriously. Those opposite did nothing, despite the pious words from the then member for Griffith, who told us that red tape was out of control. They did nothing but twiddle their thumbs and give us 21,000 additional regulations, tying up the small business people of Australia in red and green tape. Now they have the hide to come into this place and criticise us for making important reforms. On the one hand they say that these are trivial changes and are part of the normal course of business—we are fixing punctuation: full stops and commas—but on the other hand the member for Fraser goes out in print in The Australian saying, 'You are taking away important protections in the financial services sector and you are making some important changes that we do not like in the charities and not-for-profit sector,' when we are getting rid of duplication. You cannot have it both ways.
Why didn't you come up with a proposal to streamline the Comcare scheme and allow companies around Australia who operate in multiple jurisdictions to self-insure under the Comcare scheme? Why didn't you come up with the one-stop shop approval process? Labor states have joined with coalition states in signing onto our one-stop shop, worth $426 million a year in savings. Why didn't you come up with the changes to the Do Not Call Register, which will see more than nine million Australians no longer having to renew their membership of the Do Not Call Register? Why didn't you come up with the changes to the NBN? We are no longer mandating Australian homes have a big, bulky, expensive battery backup because we know that most Australian homes now have a mobile phone. Why don't you accept that we came up with this first and that we have the stomach and the fortitude to make changes in deregulation where you guys patently failed?
When Craig Emerson was the Minister for Small Business he said, 'We are taking giant scissors to red tape' and those giant scissors led to an additional 21,000 regulations.
A giant printing press.
There was a giant printing press, thank you very much, Minister. We have actually made significant changes. The competitiveness paper which was released just a couple of weeks ago had a landmark change. That landmark change was that we will now accept into Australia product systems and services where they have been approved already by trusted international jurisdictions. And the regulators in this country, whether it is the APVMA, whether it is NICNAS or whether it is the TGA, will only add an extra layer of regulation when there is a proven need to do so.
We had the CEO of Cochlear, Chris Roberts, come out publicly and say this will make a major difference to the operation of his business. The member for Longman, from his own electorate, brought the wonderful example of a company that produces cricket balls and footballs made out of leather. They need to bring in a leather measuring and cutting machine from Italy but then they have to pay $3,000 for that machine to be accredited. Why is that the case? If it has been approved in Italy and Europe is a trusted international jurisdiction, there has to be a very good reason why it cannot automatically be brought into the Australian system. Why does an importer from Europe of commercial cooking equipment that goes to the hospitality and tourism sectors and to the aged care sector have to pay $12,000 per machine to get it accredited in Australia? It is just an extra layer of cost which is then passed on to the consumer.
We have come up with a system and with new processes to bed down this new deregulation agenda. Ministers now have established deregulation units. Ministers have now appointed ministerial advisory committees to advise them on the key areas to cut regulation. We have changed the KPIs for senior public servants to align their best interests with our best interests and the public's best interests—namely, cutting red tape. We have assigned two days of the parliamentary timetable to just cutting red tape. We have set ourselves a target of a billion dollars a year as a net target. It is a big target. We are now $2.1 billion—a number that the member for Watson hates to hear.
How much?
It is $2.1 billion. We tasked the Productivity Commission to come up with a framework for auditing the performance of the regulators, which is now finalised and was released earlier today. It is very significant when we have 150 regulators at the Commonwealth level including major ones like the ATO, ASIC, APRA, ACMA and others much smaller like the Office of Gene Technology or the Passports Office or the like. These are all extremely significant changes and they are changes that are making people's interaction with government that much easier through the myGov and the MyTax site and they are reducing the overall compliance base.
It will be interesting to see whether the member for Watson and those opposite support changes to the corporations law, which will no longer allow 100 shareholders to call a special general meeting of a company like Woolworths, which has over 400,000 shareholders. One hundred shareholders can still put an issue on the agenda at a major special general meeting but they should not be allowed to call a special general meeting in itself. It is a measure which has been warmly received by the business community and will be a test for those opposite to see how job friendly and business friendly they really are.
I could go on. We have made extremely good progress in just the year we have been at the helm. We have got legislation through the Senate and we have banked reforms. Our first omnibus bill went through the Senate, our changes to the agricultural chemicals went through the Senate, our changes around classification went through the Senate, our changes around the future of financial advice went through the Senate and we are hopeful to get our one-stop shops through the Senate shortly. We have banked a lot of reforms that we have already announced but we still have a long way to go.
I want to thank the minister, for example, in job services, who made a very significant reform to ensure that there is less paperwork for job service providers—an incredible reform. To all the cabinet ministers, all the junior ministers and all the parliamentary secretaries who have made extremely significant reforms, we are very grateful. Most of all, can I think the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister has led this agenda. The Prime Minister himself has taken responsibility for the deregulation agenda by making it a standing item at COAG meetings, by driving change with his fellow premiers and chief ministers and by ensuring that his ministers and his Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet maintain the momentum that we currently have to cut red tape.
I also thank the senior members of the public service in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, all the deregulation units in the other portfolios and officers of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who were responsible for drafting this legislation. This has been a team effort from start to finish.
I must tell you, the finish line is a long way away because the Productivity Commission has estimated that four per cent of GDP at least is tied up in red tape and compliance. Deloittes put out a report saying one million Australians are involved in the compliance sector. Clearly, this is too much. This has to change and, on this side of the House, we are determined to do it. These bills today are extremely important and are just one step along the way to cutting 1,000 pieces of regulation legislation and removing over 7,200 pages from the statute books, giving us a headline figure of $2.1 billion if we combine repeal day 1 and repeal day 2.
This is an important day for the parliament. This is an important day for the families, the businesses and the not-for-profits of the country and for the farmers of this country, who tell us that one dollar in every six dollars that they take at the farm gate is taken up in compliance. This is an important step in freeing up our economy ensuring we have higher productivity, growth, innovation, entrepreneurship and, most importantly of all, that we have more jobs for Australians today and into the future. I commend these bills to the House.
The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Pursuant to the resolution agreed to earlier, I will now put the question on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 and two related bills. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.
Original question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. In Australia and throughout the world athletes are placed on a pedestal, often unwittingly, and are held not only to society's highest expectations in terms of performance levels but also to our highest moral standards. No person in this place, or outside, can claim to be perfect—as much as we all like to think we are. Although we all make mistakes, the reasons behind them do not excuse us from their repercussions and nor should they.
The Australian Sports Commission Code of Conduct aims to protect all athletes from competing on an unlevel playing field and provides a mechanism for reviewing and imposing penalties in those instances where conduct within a professional sporting organisation is unbecoming on or off the field.
The Australian government has been proactive in the fight against drugs in sport. In 1990, it established an independent statutory agency, the Australian Sports Drug Agency—ASDA—to deal with drug testing and drug education. However, as ASDA was not empowered to deal with issues relating to possession or trafficking in prohibited substances or methods, in 2006 it was replaced by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, or ASADA, which was given more power to deal with drugs used in sport. In the past two years we have seen Australian society's respect for our athletes and sporting bodies hit its lowest level, with alleged performance enhancing drug scandals with two high-profile sporting clubs hitting the media spotlight. A dark cloud now rests over these teams specifically, but its ripple effect has been felt by all manner of professional sporting organisations, with society now questioning whether this slap in the face to our sporting code is more widespread than those instances currently identified. The concept of fair play is a key foundation of amateur and professional sport in Australia, and any threat to Australia's reputation and integrity, both domestically and internationally, cannot be taken lightly.
By way of background, these instances of alleged drug use and the claim that a much more widespread culture of doping exists to enhance athletes' performances was identified by the Australian Crime Commission in its February 2013 report, Organised crime and drugs in sport. The report was released following a 12-month investigation by the ACC and was supported by ASADA and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This led to ASADA investigating a team's 2011 squad after an internal investigation found that the players were treated with peptide injections, creams and tablets over an 11-week period. The NRL imposed a $1 million sanction on that club—$400,000 of which was suspended—stood down the coach for 12 months and cancelled the former strength and conditioning coach's registration over the club's part in the supplements' scandal. Most recently, ASADA issued 17 show-cause notices on former and current players, with 12 players accepting a 12-month suspension, backdated to 23 November 2014. This ban was offered by ASADA to recognise that, although prohibited substances were taken, players were misled about the nature of those substances being administered to them.
The NRL and the AFL did, however, have markedly different investigative approaches to their respective drug scandals, with the AFL club self-reporting to ASADA and the AFL, asking the league to investigate concerns about the potential inappropriate use of supplements during the 2012 season. That AFL club was disqualified from the 2013 finals and fined $2 million by the AFL. The coach had a 12-month ban imposed, and his replacement was fined. Formal allegations of possible antidoping rule violations were also reissued to 34 current and former players from that particular team on 17 October, with the AFL Players Association last week confirming that the notices would not be contested.
These investigations have identified serious fractures in our sporting industry's ability to identify antidoping violations and a concern that although these substances are being used by professional athletes, they are being facilitated by sports scientists, coaches and sports staff.
As a former footballer in the WAFL and a former director of junior development for Perth Football Club, I know from firsthand experience that, in sporting environments, various treatments in the form of creams, tablets and injections are used by sports staff to ease pain and assist with muscle recovery and that these treatments are within the scope of approved ASADA substances. Trust is afforded between players, coaches and sporting staff in these cases, and it is unlikely that questions would be asked as to the nature of the substance. Although these scandals may change that assertion and more questions will be, and should be, asked routinely by players and staff in an environment where injuries are common. Quorum formed) The opposition obviously do not want to hear what I am saying on this particular bill, and they will probably continue to call quorums, but that is their choice. I will continue where I left off. As I said before, questions should be asked on a regular basis by players and staff in an environment where injuries are common. I have to say that it is my view that these practices are unlikely to change on a day-to-day basis in the short or long term.
The concept of a supplements program should, however, start to ring some alarm bells. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of players not only do the right thing and uphold the integrity of their team, and their sporting organisation more generally; they are also great community ambassadors. In Western Australia, players from both the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers often attend Auskick games to inspire and encourage the youth of today, and are actively involved in many charitable organisations that promote health and wellbeing, something that is common amongst AFL teams and the wider sporting industry of Australia.
Government members interjecting—
And I hear support from my colleagues on that. As the ACC report noted, these players 'do not deserve to be under a cloud of speculation'; however, that is exactly what has happened. There needs to be some certainty as to what these players can expect or an end date to what is going on.
It is also important to take this time to highlight that Australia is not alone in identifying doping within sporting organisations. I am sure those in this place have already drawn parallels between what is currently being seen in Australian sport and what was identified by the US Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into American cyclist Lance Armstrong, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from professional sports for life after admitting to using performance enhancing drugs throughout his career.
It is a simple fact that all professional athletes are under pressure to perform. As I said earlier, this may be their reason for using banned substances, but it does not excuse them from facing imposed penalties for their actions. It is, however, important to note that, despite the media spotlight that has been placed on the AFL due to last year's alleged drug scandal, only one AFL player has been listed on ASADA's current list of findings which dates back to 2009. This is compared to bodybuilding, which has been listed on ASADA's top three sports for 'most cited incidences' every year since 2006; or Rugby League, which has been listed in the top three every year since 2006-07. The list of most cited substances has also been similar each year, with the highest rate of violations since 2005-06 being for the use of anabolic agents and steroids, with 75 violations; closely followed by stimulants, which had 69 violations since this time.
The core focus of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is to align Australia's antidoping legislation with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that will come into force on 1 January 2015. This followed a comprehensive review by the World Anti-Doping Agency, whose revisions to the code were adopted by the international antidoping community at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 15 November 2013. As a member of the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, Australia has an obligation to ensure that our standards are consistent with this code.
The bill before the House will revise the ASADA Act by clarifying or extending the framework of the current provisions. This includes a new prohibited association antidoping rule violation, or ADRV, called 'prohibited association'. The aim of this additional violation is to prevent athletes from associating with any athlete support person who has a proven record of violating doping regulations or similar activities that would constitute a violation.
Currently, action on a possible ADRV must be commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. An additional amendment to the code will increase this time frame to 10 years to improve ASADA's ability to uncover doping programs and retrospectively analyse athletes' stored samples as new technologies for doping identification are developed.
Additional amendments to the code will also require ASADA to maintain a public record of violations, to be known as the 'violations list', which will include information such as the name of the athlete or athlete support person, date of birth, relevant sport, team, nature of the violation, date when the violation was determined and the period of ineligibility and any other consequences imposed. This will expand ASADA's current requirement to report on its website the details of an ADRV once a matter is finalised.
As mentioned earlier, ASADA currently lists reported violations on its register of findings. There has, however, been confusion with how these violations are listed, with the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel currently being required to enter details of a possible violation onto the register. This entry is not confirmation that a violation has taken place; it is simply a notation to state that it is a possibility. To reflect this public confusion, the legislation before the House proposes that the concept of a register is removed, with the panel instead making an assertion to ASADA's CEO that, based on reviewed evidence, the panel believes a violation may have occurred.
In the wake of significant advancements to the media industry and its online presence and immediacy, amendments to the code are also proposed in regards to the public disclosure of information. These amendments will introduce an exception to current legislation, which prevents public comment by ASADA on specific facts of a pending case. The exception will allow ASADA to publicly comment to correct or clarify facts where an athlete or their representative initiates discussion publicly about his or her case.
This bill goes a long way to sorting out a few issues that need to be sorted out so there is clarity and surety for athletes in Australia and in our national sporting bodies, and to bring us into line with the world antidoping agencies.
I commend the bill to the House.
While it is pleasure to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014, it was unexpected that I would be doing so at this exact moment in time. It is normally the courtesy and the processes of the House that the government inform the opposition if they are going to gag the debate or knock off their own speakers in terms of a particular bill, to ensure the good running and order of the House and, as we just saw a moment earlier, to make sure that people are appropriately ready to come in here to speak on particular bills—which we always are, but occasionally you have to get from point A to point B to get here if a stunt is pulled. I just wanted to state that so the people looking at this can see why it is that Mr Irons spoke on this bill ahead of me when I was on the paper to speak next. I will not go on about it, but it is annoying. I would actually add a word of thanks. I know it is not the member for Swan's fault or responsibility that this happened in the House.
It must be someone's responsibility.
Obviously it is somebody's responsibility—that is right. Anyway, it was not his fault.
The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is not a controversial bill. It is a bill that does a range of things. It aligns Australia's antidoping legislation with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that come into force on 1 January 2015. It is important that we align our codes with the international standard. It is to make sure that it is a continued operation of a globally harmonised antidoping framework. International sporting federations and governments are now required to amend their own antidoping frameworks to align with the revised code and standards by 1 January 2015. Australia is a signatory to UNESCO convention, so the Australian government is also obliged to amend its antidoping arrangements to align with the principles of the code. In that sense there is nothing overly interesting about this particular amendment.
Labor supports the bill and unequivocally supports the fight against doping in sport. In recent times there has been much controversy and debate across a whole range of areas in this respect. Doping is plainly and simply cheating. It is using banned substances and practices to gain an unfair advantage over a rival. Doping can and does cause serious long-term health problems for athletes. Australians, quite rightly, have an expectation and demand that our athletes are doping free.
To give some sort of historical context to this, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 aligns with the World Anti-Doping Code. Australia's antidoping legislation gives effect to the international obligations under the UNESCO convention. The international sporting community, including the International Olympic Committee and international federations who are signatories to the code are committed to updating their antidoping policies to reflect the revised code. At the same time, the 176 governments who have ratified the UNESCO convention, such as the Australian government, are obliged to align their arrangements with the principles of the revised code.
Within Australia, ASADA implements code compliant programs and activities that encompass deterrence, detection and enforcement. ASADA works closely with Australia's national sporting organisations in implementing these arrangements. All of these NSOs' antidoping policies replicate the essential parts of the code. This includes the provisions for the sanctioning of athletes who are found to have committed an antidoping rule violation, an ADRV. In late 2011 the, WADA, initiated a comprehensive review of the code. Revisions to the code, arising from this review, were adopted by the international antidoping community at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 November 2013.
The key revisions to the code include: an enhanced focus on the role of investigations and intelligence gathering; mandatory four-year sanctions for certain ADRVs, relating to the use of performance enhancing substances such as anabolic steroids; a relaxation of the rules surrounding the requirements for specific athletes to provide ongoing notification of their whereabouts to facilitate testing—known as the whereabouts requirements—which have been criticised in the past as being unfair and harsh; systems to provide more effective and efficient testing regimes to maximise the chances of catching doping, by ensuring that the testing targets the substances most likely to be used by athletes in that sport; and a new requirement on sporting organisations that coaches and support staff do not use prohibited substances themselves.
Further, to ensure the continued operation of a globally harmonised antidoping framework, international sporting federations and governments are now required to amend their own antidoping frameworks to align with the revised code and standards by 1 January 2015. As I explained earlier, Australia, as a signatory to the UNESCO convention, is also obliged to amend its antidoping arrangements to align with the principles of the code. This is what this bill seeks to do and Labor is happy to support it.
There are serious implications for noncompliance or failing to enforce the WADC. All national Olympic committees and international sports federations are required, by the IOC, to sign the WADC. Sporting codes or countries that fail to sign up to and/or enforce the WADC risk exclusion of their athletes from the Olympics and/or other key sporting events—and, of course, Australia does not want this to happen to our athletes. For national sporting organisations the consequence at a local level of noncompliance or failing to enforce the WADC includes being ineligible for Commonwealth funding and other support delivered by the Australian Sports Commission and potentially being liable for breaches of existing contracts.
At the international level, the relevant NSO and all its athletes and officials would be excluded from major international events such as the Olympics and most world championships conducted by a relevant international federation. The consequences of noncompliance for Australia more broadly range from having individual sports excluded from international competition through to Australia as a whole being excluded from the Olympic Games and other top-level sporting events. This would include Australian athletes being ineligible to compete as well as Australian cities being ineligible to bid for hosting or actually hosting key events. So these are pretty serious consequences if Australia were not to align its code, and hence why it is important that this comes before the parliament; it is important that it gets parliamentary support, which it does; and it is important that we implement this alignment fully.
The bill also provides for the creation of a new antidoping rule violation. The code currently specifies a list of eight actions that individually constitute an ADRV. The international antidoping community has agreed to increase the number of violations from eight to 10. This includes a new violation called prohibited association. It will become an ADRV for an athlete to associate in a professional or sports related capacity with an athlete support person who is serving a period of ineligibility or who has been convicted of crime or sanctioned for professional misconduct for activity that would otherwise constitute a doping violation. This ADRV is designed to curtail the influence of people with a proven history of doping and with the skills to facilitate systemic doping programs.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill heard concerns about the practical implications of this new prohibited association violation. The Department of Health has explained that these concerns seem to relate to a lack of detail in the bill and explanatory memorandum. While we are comfortable with the department's explanation, Labor looks forward to seeing the extra detail being provided in the associated regulations to be presented soon.
Further, the bill will extend the limitation period for authorities to commence action after a violation is believed to have occurred. Currently action on a possible ADRV must be commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. The code has been revised so that from 1 January 2015 authorities will have up to 10 years within which to commence action. This change improves the scope for antidoping agencies to uncover sophisticated doping programs and provides greater scope for retrospective analysis of stored samples as new technologies to identify prohibited substances are developed.
The bill also seeks to make changes to the operation of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, the ASDMAC. The committee is responsible for considering applications by athletes for the legitimate therapeutic use of prohibited substances or methods through the granting of therapeutic use exceptions—TUEs. The TUE process aims to ensure that athletes can obtain legitimate medical treatment without committing an offence—an ADRV. Under the revised code antidoping organisations are explicitly required to provide for reviews of decisions on TUEs. So while currently there is a clear authority for the ASDMAC to approve TUE applications in Australia, the only mechanism available to athletes to appeal decisions of the committee, if unsuccessful, is to challenge such a decision with WADA. The bill will allow the minister to appoint three people for the sole function of reviewing ASDMAC decisions in the first instance. While these people are ASDMAC members, they will be independent from the committee decision-making process, ensuring that reviews are independent of the initial decision. The bill also seeks to enshrine in the ASADA Act the requirement of the revised code that at least one member of the committee should have experience in the care and treatment of athletes with impairments. Labor believes that it is important that the needs of athletes with impairment are considered at all stages of this process.
When we consider that the ASADA CEO recently stated that positive blood or your own tests detects on average between one and two per cent of violations, it is clear that intelligence gathering is an essential element of any strategy for detecting doping. The revised code emphasises the need for effective information flows between government agencies, sporting bodies and antidoping organisations. The bill enhances and simplifies the information-sharing provisions in the ASADA Act to improve the exchange of information between relevant stakeholders that would assist in identifying and substantiating doping violations.
The bill seeks to repeal the current sanctions of the ASADA Act which distinguish between national antidoping scheme personal information, national antidoping scheme contract personal information, and protected Customs information, and restructure the information-sharing provisions around a single concept of protected information. 'Protected information' will be defined as information obtained under, or for the purposes of, the ASADA Act or legislative instrument made under the ASADA Act that relate to the affairs of a person and could be used to identify that person.
It will be an offence to disclose that information unless it is an authorised disclosure. Authorised disclosures will be described in the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations. The potential to be publicly named as a drug cheat is considered to be part of an important deterrent for any athlete, and all athletes and support persons should be aware that the details of an antidoping rule violation may be made public. It is the current practice for ASADA to report on its website the details of a violation once the matter is finalised.
This bill, to be consistent with article 14 of the code, will propose that ASADA be now required to maintain a public record of ADRVs to be known as the violations list. The violations list will include information such as the name of an athlete or athlete support person, date of birth, relevant sport, team, nature of the violation, date when the ADRV was determined and the period of ineligibility and any other consequences imposed.
Importantly, the bill provides discretion for the ASADA CEO not to place the details of a violation on the violations list in limited circumstances. For example, this may include a first violation by a person under the age of 18 years where the need for confidentiality for an underaged person outweighs the need for transparency.
The high-profile ASADA investigations that have dominated news in AFL and NRL over the past two years have taught us there is significant public interest in antidoping and significant pressure on persons involved to make public comment.
The new code provides that no antidoping organisations shall publicly comment on the specific facts of a pending case except in response to public comments attributed to an athlete, other person or their representatives. While existing legislation prevents public comment by ASADA on specific facts of a pending case it does not recognise expressly this exception, which is provided for in the code. This bill seeks to recognise this exception so that a public comment can be provided by ASADA to correct or clarify facts where an athlete or their representative initiates discussion publicly about his or her case.
There are also a number of minor or technical amendments proposed in the bill. A definition for 'recognised laboratory' has been added to reflect the accreditation process specified in the International Standard for Laboratories, the definitions of 'international standard' and 'registered medical practitioner' have been updated and reference to 'safety checking service' has been removed to better reflect current practice.
This bill contains one measure that is not required for consistency with the new WADC. Currently, the operation of the Register of Findings midway through the ADRV process creates complexity and confusion, leading some people to assume that the Anti-doping Rule Violation Panel is the final hearing body for an ADRV. This is not the case. The purpose of the ADRVP is to review the evidence collected by ASADA. An entry on the Register of Findings after the ADRVP review only indicates that, based on the evidence the ADRVP has reviewed, it is possible that the violation has taken place. Once an entry is made, the matter is referred to a sports administration body for determination. In a recent case, the full Federal Court observed that, despite the terms used in legislation, the ADRVP makes an 'assertion' of a violation, rather than 'finding' that an athlete has committed the breach.
I conclude by reiterating Labor's strong support for the antidoping measures. As parliamentarians we must do whatever is possible to protect the integrity of Australian sport and of Australian athletes and the codes we hold dear in this country. Labor believes this bill does that, and I commend the bill to the House.
A peak sportswoman or -man who has devoted their life to their sport, who has made sacrifices in their social life and family life to dedicate time to their sport does not want to come second to someone who has enhanced their performance with drugs. Many and varied substances have been used to enhance athletic performance for literally centuries. Most sports introduced some form of drug testing during the 1970s to attempt to combat substance abuse in the modern sporting environment. However, testing regimes to identify drugs have consistently lagged behind (Quorum formed) the development and introduction of new substances such as anabolic steroids. During the 1990s, governments and international authorities considered various policies and actions to combat the increasing use of drugs in sport, but a major problem appeared to be that these efforts were uncoordinated.
In an effort to rectify the situation, in 1999 the International Olympic Committee convened a world conference on sports doping. As a result of this conference, the World Anti-Doping Agency was established later that year. WADA developed the World Anti-Doping Code, which applies to all athletes and to all those who assist athletes in their preparation for international sporting participation. All national Olympic committees and international sports federations are required to sign this code. As governments were not bound by the WADC, in October 2005 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization adopted the International Convention against Doping in Sport. Parties to this convention, to which Australia was an early signatory, are required to implement the WADC. The WADC applies to anyone who participates in sport at the international or national level, or at lower levels of competition, as well as to athlete support persons including coaches, agents, managers and medical personnel. This bill amends the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to align that act with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that will come into force on 1 January 2015.
The revisions have been based on a number of themes. This bill specifically addresses the targeting of athlete support personnel who are involved in doping, the imposition of longer periods of ineligibility and the placing of additional emphasis on information management to accommodate WADA's move towards the greater use of investigation and information-gathering in the detection of drug cheats.
The Australian government has been proactive in the fight against drugs in sport. In 1990 it established an independent statutory agency, the Australian Sports Drug Agency or ASDA, to deal with drug testing and drug education. However, as ASDA was not empowered to deal with issues relating to possession of, or trafficking in, prohibited substances or methods, it was replaced in 2006 by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, or ASADA, and that body was given more power to deal with drug use in sport.
The ASADA Act sets out issues that must be addressed in the National Anti-Doping Scheme. This bill will require the scheme to authorise the CEO of ASADA to commence operation of a new antidoping rule violation—the prohibited association violation. This means it will be a violation for an athlete or support person to associate, in a professional or sport related capacity, with a person who is serving a period of ineligibility as the result of a decision by an antidoping organisation such as ASADA. The scheme will be required to authorise the CEO of ASADA to notify the athlete or support person that his or her association with another person may constitute a code violation.
The bill will add to the current practice for ASADA to report on its website the details of a finalised violation by requiring the CEO of the agency to maintain a public record known as the violations list—basically, naming and shaming. The bill will also provide a domestic means through which an athlete who has been denied access to a therapeutic use exemption—which allows athletes to use essential medical treatment without being guilty of a violation, such as when asthmatics use Ventolin— (Quorum formed) Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; no thank you to those opposite! The bill will also provide a domestic means through which an athlete who has been denied access to a therapeutic use exception—which allows athletes to use essential medical treatment without being guilty of a violation, such as when asthmatics use Ventolin—to seek a review of a refusal. It basically introduces an appeal process. It is intended that this will occur as the result of the appointment of additional members of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, whose sole purpose will be to review decisions.
This bill is intended to facilitate better information sharing across relevant authorities while providing certain limitations on the release of information. This will address the issues of proportionality in disclosure and of human rights, which were of concern in drafting the new WADA code.
It is important that Australia maintains its strong stance on antidoping in sport by aligning with the revised international standards. The Australian government understands the importance of protecting the integrity of sport. I commend this bill to the House and wish our athletes at every level the very best for future drug-free success.
I never had a chance of being picked in the AFL draft. I wish I could have been; I think there are many people who wish they could have been, but there are precious few of us who are actually on the list.
But there are some who are on the list and there are some who get picked and they go, when they have the good fortune to be picked, into an AFL club—that being the code of choice in my area and state. When they go into that AFL club, for many of them, it is the dream of a lifetime—something they have been working towards for a very long time. Most of them, when they are picked and go in—or certainly many of them—are teenagers. This may be the first time they have moved away from their home town. It might be the first time that they move out of home. It might be the first thing that would count for them as a full-time job. So they get a gig with an AFL team as a teenager. What could be better? When you are in with that club, which is now effectively run as a big business, as they all are now, you are surrounded by people who you think have your welfare at heart. Those people are going to advise you on all sorts of things. They are going to advise on how to behave in public, how to play on the field and, as we are finding out in Victoria and right around the country, they are going to advise you on what to take. In some cases that advice is not necessarily voluntarily offered and you pretty much have no choice. It is going to be a rare teenager who has just been picked to start their football career in something like the AFL, or it could be any other code, who is going to speak up. You are going to do what you are told. In fact it may even be in your contract that when the people around you tell you to do something you have to do it, otherwise your position at that club might be under threat.
It is those people, the individuals who find themselves at the centre of sport as athletes, who should be our first priority. Maybe after you have been at the club or in the league for five or 10 years you have a bit of bargaining power of your own. But it is the ones who come in, who are there because they are fulfilling the dream of a lifetime but are doing what they are told, who should be our central focus when we are considering this bill. At the end of the day, taking action against doping should be about promoting their welfare first and foremost. Secondly, it is the people around them who may be supplying them and directing them to use illicit substances who should be the ones subject to criminal penalties. In other words, support the welfare of the athletics; and target those who are trying to do things to the athletes that might in fact do them harm.
But that is not what this bill does; it has it the other way around. Although it has the laudable aim that everyone of us in here would support, which is to protect athletes and stop drugs in sport, it does not do that. It increases penalties on the athletes, possibly to the point where for many of them it could be career ending, in situations where parts of the bill are poorly drafted and where we know that ASADA does not have the resources to do its job properly. We should be having the review of ASADA and making sure that it is properly resourced to do its job before we take steps that could end people's careers, when they are the ones that we should be trying to protect.
The thrust of the proposition that was put forward in the committee inquiry process from the Law Institute of Victoria and the Commercial Bar Association was that the bill penalises athletes for their associations. What they said, and what we agree with, is that a more effective way of addressing antidoping violations would be to amend the Crimes Act, as most of the offences involve prohibited substances. Amending the Crimes Act, rather than penalising athletes, would put the pressure back on people who are in effect drug dealers rather than the athletes.
As I mentioned, there are some drafting concerns with this bill. The definition of who constitutes a 'support person', the people who are surrounding the athlete, is vague. It could be, as even people who supported the bill submitted to the inquiry, so broad that it captures family members and innocent people who are surrounding the athlete and trying to support them to do the right thing, especially in situations where they may not have the full information. They may be encouraging them to take the supplement or the drug in question without knowing what it is, but doing it because they feel that it is the right thing to do and that is what the club has told them to do.
The Commercial Bar Association has raised concerns with the term 'support person', pointing out that the broad and vague terms could include parents of young, nonprofessional athletes as well as those involved in deliberate doping. The Australian Athletes Alliance, which represents Australia's eight major player associations and over 3,500 elite athletes in Australia, strongly oppose the bill on a number of grounds—principally, that the bill does not protect the rights of clean athletes who would be subjected to an ineffective antidoping regime.
There is a gulf between the problem of doping and cheating in sport, which we all want to tackle, and the outcomes that this bill claims that it will achieve. One of the things that this bill ignores, sadly, is the role of collective bargaining in allowing codes, leagues, players and clubs themselves to enforce strict obligations to ensure, essentially, that they have a safe workplace. The priority should be that they are entitled to a safe and drug-free workplace. That is how we should be thinking about this—ensuring that the athletes have a drug-free workplace and life. That type of collective bargaining operates elsewhere around the world, but this bill penalises the athletes instead of the targets, which should be those who peddle and promote illegal drugs in sport.
I mentioned before the penalties. The stipulated penalties double, from two to four years, the ban on the athletes. This is important because the principles and the code against which this bill is being assessed were generated in the context of Olympic athletes. That is every four years, but when you are dealing with someone who has a much shorter playing career, where they are required to be there year-in year-out, a four-year ban could be career ending. No justification or evidence was presented to the committee inquiring into this legislation as to why the penalty should be increased to four years. No account was taken of the fact that the code and the principles were developed in a different environment.
As I mentioned, ASADA also needs to be better resourced. Even the World Anti-Doping Agency has been critical of ASADA's time delays and inability to provide speedy resolutions to antidoping cases. As it stands, this bill presents several problems for Australian sports and Australian athletes. What we need is a wide-ranging inquiry into ASADA before this bill is voted on. Given that this bill is designed for Olympic and world-class athletes, given that it will have an incredible impact on people who need our support rather than being penalised and given that it does not penalise the right people but targets the wrong ones, we are not in a position to support this bill as it currently stands.
I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. (Quorum formed) This bill brings Australia's antidoping legislation into alignment with the World Anti-Doping Authority, or WADA. These standards come into effect on 1 January 2015. I support the bill, and I want to get that on the record. I do not think the member for Melbourne could be more wrong when he says that it should never be about the individual. The individual takes a great deal of responsibility. But I do take his point about the trust that is put in young athletes. An athlete is looking for the edge.
I preface my speech on the second reading of this bill by saying that, as a footballer, as a rugby player, I peaked at very, very ordinary. I was only able to hold that standard for a couple of weeks and then I dropped back down to absolute rubbish. I love sport. A keen sportsman will always know that they are looking for the edge, no matter what it is. As a sportsman, as a competitor, you must push to the very edge. Maurice Greene would often talk about the 87 steps—87 steps was what he did in the 100-metre sprint. He analysed every step: how his foot should hit the ground; where his foot should be pointed; what his arm should be doing—how high should it be raised. Every single part of it was about getting the edge. That is what drugs in sport is about.
We are not just talking about football here; we are talking about individual sportspeople as well. I notice the member for Makin is going to speak after me. The member for Makin was a very good powerlifter in his day. The thing you have to remember and the thing I love about powerlifting is that it is such an intense sport. You can feel the fibres in your legs tearing as you try for that extra little bit. The member for Makin will know that in the sport of weightlifting, where you need high muscle mass and great explosive speed, the temptation to take that little bit extra is very, very real. The people who do not do it are the true champions, but they do not always get the medals.
Who of us will forget watching the 100-metre sprint at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, when Ben Johnson just streeted the field and left Carl Lewis and the English guy, Lindford Christie, in his wake. It was sport's darkest day. Fast forward to 1992, when you saw Florence Griffith Joyner, who, in 1988, was a slim girl. She turned up at Barcelona as the supreme athlete. I remember talking to Tracey Belbin, who had won gold in Seoul for Australian hockey. She was talking about how they had done their pre-training in Darwin to get themselves ready for the heat in Barcelona. They turned up at the games and were as good as they could possibly be, but they suddenly turned around and there was Florence Griffith Joyner—and they knew what it was
What sports people do is look for the edge, and some people cannot make it on their own and they will look for the edge chemically. That is what we have to watch out for. That is why the penalties must be carried by the athlete. Marion Jones knew exactly what she was doing all the way through and she chose to follow that. That is why ASADA and WADA and those sorts of bodies must be involved in this space, because it is a race against the pharmaceuticals and it is a race against the people who have huge investment in these things—and the people involved are mere products. That is what we have to do. The member for Oxley gave his speech on the second reading—and he is a guy who loves his cycling. The sport of cycling has awful trouble in relation to performance enhancing doping and EPO and those sorts of things.
I cannot leave this topic without talking about the darkest day in Australian sport, being 7 February last year. I do not blame the member for Blaxland or the senator for the ACT for what they did. Politics at times can be a very dirty game. What the Labor Party did last year was come out and point the finger fairly and squarely at the chest of my North Queensland Cowboys with no evidence against the Cowboys whatsoever. Those players are not just professional athletes; they are members of my community. People like Dallas Johnson and Glenn Hall are parents, fathers in my community, and they were cast with the pall of being drug cheats. I do not blame the member for Blaxland or the senator for the ACT for what they did, because what they did was follow instructions. What they were told to do was go out and create a distraction. They did not care and the government of the day did not care who they hurt. Supreme athletes like Johnathan Thurston and Matthew Scott, at the upper echelon of the game, are being cast with the pall of having to prove themselves as not being drug cheats. It is outrageous.
Can I tell you a story about Matthew Bowen, the mercurial North Queensland fullback. On his first trip away he scored a try. What they do is they give you a beer to drink in the sheds afterwards. Matthew Bowen was born and bred in Hopevale. He went to school at Abergowrie and joined the Cowboys after. In the dressing sheds afterwards he had two mouthfuls of beer and said, 'I don't know how you drink this stuff.' You will never find a cleaner athlete in the world than Matthew Bowen. Yet he had to turn up and disprove himself as a drug cheat. That is what happens in this place.
I prefer to call myself a parliamentarian than a politician because it hurts when you have to front people and say: this is what politics does to people. People like Laurence Lancini, who was the chair of the Cowboys at the time; Peter Jourdain, who was the CEO; Peter Parr, who tells these players that they can trust him; and Neil Henry, the coach at the time—they all had to go out there and do the right thing. Everything that happened with Essendon and the peptides, I feel very, very strongly for the players involved. They were looking for that edge and what they were being told by the club, in that instance, is that what they were doing is legal. When you are in a team sport, you have to buy into the entire team ethos. They were being told that it was legal.
Paul Gallen plays for the Cronulla Sharks and when he plays for the Sharks and he plays for New South Wales I hate him—I wish he played for the Cowboys—but he has just copped a $50,000 fine because of what he did on the instructions of his club. He was not a 17-year-old child. He was a seasoned athlete and a professional athlete at the peak of his powers, but he still trusted his team and his club and he would take the things that they gave him. They told him that it was okay to take them. I disagree with the member for Melbourne. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual, because the coach does not get the award and the club does not get the award. It is the individual who gets the gold medal. It is the individual who goes into the record books. Marion Jones has been expunged from the record books, but that does not help.
I stand by this bill and I think that what we are trying to do in this place is right, but there will always be a battle between those people who do it naturally and those people who need the edge. I do not think there is a more competitive place in Australia than inside this chamber. People will do what they can do to get an edge, to get in front of things. I guarantee that if there was an illegal drug that could get you to the end and get you a promotion in politics, there would be people in here that would take it. I would not take it. I am flat out taking Pepsi Max-tides let alone peptides. I do not want to sound flippant on this because it is a very important subject. I cannot let it slip without saying that the North Queensland Cowboys were maliciously maligned by the previous government and it was a dark day for everyone here. There are so many things that professional footballers and professional athletes have to go through and those people who have been able to get through it and put their bodies on the line week after week and do the hard yards must be supported. I thank the House for this opportunity to speak on this and I commend the bill.
As the member for Oxley, Labor's spokesman for sports, has made clear to the House, we will be supporting this legislation. The bill effectively aligns Australia's anti-doping regime with that of the international scene. I will keep my remarks relatively brief and confine my comments to certain matters.
I come to this debate not only as someone who has been drug tested on several occasions in the course of my competition days but also as someone who has coached several of Australia's champion athletes along the way. It is an area that I think I have had some personal experience with and I can speak on with some authority.
Today, sport is a multibillion dollar industry. It generates huge amounts of money and, as we have seen, big business have gone into sport purely for the purpose of making money out of it. They make money out of it by ensuring that the sports people themselves are star performers. If you are not a star performer, you not only do not make the grade, do not get the billing and do not get the work; you also do not attract the audiences which in turn generates the money for those behind the organisation.
Given the amount of money involved in the sport and the amount of money that some of the top sports performers are earning today, it is not surprising that athletes will do whatever it takes to get to the top of their sporting code. The truth of the matter is that, unless you have exceptional skills, an exceptional ability or even an exceptional training regime and exceptional genetics, you cannot get to the top of your sporting profession today without the additional support that comes from sports enhancement drugs in many cases.
It is not surprising that this has become a major international issue. It was not until the 1980s that sports testing became common in sporting codes around the country and around the world. Prior to that there was little testing. Indeed, because there was little testing, there were athletes who on a regular basis were using drugs and performing with them in order to win championships or to be the best in their profession. When it became clear that athletes were winning or performing well because they were using sports performance-enhancing drugs, the testing regime came in, including here in Australia.
The problems, however, are twofold. It has always been the case, as the member for Herbert alluded to, that the pharmaceutical companies and the coaches are always one step ahead of the testing procedures and the testing processes that are implemented. When testing is carried out it is usually for specific drugs, therefore, the drugs that are not known and are not tested for are not found. There are also other ways, other chemicals and other drugs used to mask the drugs in the testing processes as well. Again, the chemical companies and pharmacists who are one step ahead of the game know what to use and how to use it in order to mask the drugs when athletes are tested. So the testing authorities are always one step behind the game. Indeed, it used to be said that the best athletes in the world are not those with the best training facilities and not those with the best coaches but those with the best pharmacists. That is the first problem.
The second problem concerns me more than any other. Many athletes do turn to taking drugs in order to get to the top of their sporting code or in order to be selected for a team or in the sports they do. I would be very surprised if any experienced coach, team mate, club official or club administrator were not aware of an athlete who is using sports performance-enhancing drugs. The problem that arises is that many of those athletes are sourcing those sports performance-enhancing drugs from unqualified people who know nothing about the chemical effects on the person's body. I have seen many athletes at the end of their career suffer very serious health consequences not as a result of using drugs but as a result of abusing drugs because they were not properly guided by the person who was selling the drugs to them. That is a real concern because for those athletes in many cases it has resulted in their death at an early age.
We seem to ignore that factor. In fact, I am not personally aware of any real studies that have been carried out on athletes subsequent to their performance days to see what their health is like afterwards. I have read many journals from America on this topic and I am yet to see a study carried out on athletes years after they have stopped performing. I can draw my own conclusions and I know many athletes personally, but I would love to see a study. As the member for Melbourne quite rightly said, we should be targeting the people pushing those sports performance-enhancing drugs onto the athletes without any scientific qualifications to do so because they are the ones putting the athletes at real risk.
The second matter that concerns me is that it seems that our authorities are not properly equipped or certainly not resourced enough to target the problem at its source—the suppliers of these products. In some cases products are sourced by people being able to get a false prescription or whatever the case is. In other cases I have no doubt the drugs come through the black market and other sources and it is purely a profit-making opportunity for the pusher, as it is when pushers push any other drugs. Again, our authorities do not appear to be well enough equipped to tackle the problem at its source. So my concern relates to the impact that sports performance-enhancing drugs have on the athletes more so than anything else. They are pushed to excel in their sports and in turn they may well succumb and take sports performance-enhancing drugs and in turn pay for it dearly later on in life. That is where I would like to see the effort and the focus put with respect to this matter.
Sport, as we all know in this place, is a quintessential part of our Australian way of life. It is part of our national identity and our history. And just think of the Melbourne Cup, due to be run next week—it is the race that stops a nation. Think of the AFL; the agony and the ecstasy of test cricket; the achievement of the Southern Stars, the national women's cricket team; our Diamonds netball team; and how many Australians would not know the immortal Sir Don Bradman or Phar Lap?
As the president of a local footy club for over 10 years, I understand very directly how important sport and sporting clubs are to rural and regional communities. Equally, I understand the passion, the commitment and the hard work, usually for a small number of volunteers who keep these clubs running—clubs across a range of sporting codes that offer opportunities to youth and to people of all ages through sport. Young people in my electorate have gone on to compete at a state, national and international level, and the hopes and dreams of their families and communities go with them. Some of them have come through the excellent programs running at the South West Academy of Sport.
I understand very directly the highs, the lows and perhaps the character-building that go with the challenges of the three knee constructions faced by our current local Harvey AFL player, Anthony Morabito. I also understand the fact that our sporting clubs are often the hub of our communities, that they bring people together. They have a real impact on that local economy as well.
We take great pride in our sporting performance, and even greater pride in a fair go on and off the field, which is what this particular Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is all about. It is perpetuating and protecting the fair go in Australian sport on and off the field. Equally, sport makes a direct contribution to the Australian economy, as well as the intangible value of showcasing Australia on the international stage through events like the Sydney Olympics, through our test matches, the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, motorsports and, in my part of the world, the Margaret River Pro, formerly the Margaret River Masters, an international surfing event. ABARE data shows that in 2006—an awfully long time ago—the total annual income generated by sport and the recreation industry in Australia was estimated to be $8.82 billion. It would be much more today.
The legislation before the House amends the ASADA Act so that it aligns with the revised World Anti-Doping Code that comes into effect on 1 January 2015. These changes will ensure that Australia remains code compliant and maintains our commitment to drug-free sport. The code will continue to promote health, fairness and equality for athletes all around the world. The changes will prohibit athletes and support personnel from associating with convicted drug cheats. There are a number of changes to the code that will have the effect of longer bans from sport for people involved in intentional doping, elevating the importance of investigations and use of intelligence in the fight against doping and increasing the focus on athlete support personnel who are involved in doping. It also places more emphasis on smart-test distribution planning and smart-menu for sample analysis, balancing the interests of international federations and national anti-doping organisations.
ASADA will work with Australian sporting organisations to ensure anti-doping policies reflect the new code and legislative framework. When you look at how important this is, ask how betrayed and disappointed do we all feel when someone we regard as a sporting legend is proven to have cheated in this way? Just think about, perhaps, something like the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong. This, as we know now, was a very sophisticated doping program. The US Anti-Doping Agency found overwhelming evidence in that case.
The Australian Crime Commission report, Organised crime and drugs in sport, said that available data—including border seizures of performance and image-enhancing drugs, national arrests for steroids and drug-injecting data—all suggest that this market is expanding considerably in Australia, with organised crime engaged in what is clearly a highly-profitable market, delivering a 150 per cent mark-up on peptides and hormones.
I think that a lot of us here are very concerned about what we see in our communities. I would have to touch on the issue of what I see and what we all see as the 'preloading'. I refer to the people who we see interesting in some form a dangerous cocktail of excessive amounts of caffeine-booster drinks— (Quorum formed)
I am delighted that my colleagues chose to join me. Thank you. I wanted to talk about the dangerous cocktail of excessive amounts of caffeine-boosted drinks; the extensive use of supplements that can go with this; steroids; add the odd recreational drug, perhaps like ecstasy; and all topped off by alcohol, before some people go out for the night. It is no wonder in this environment that we have such problems on our streets and in our venues as well as rising individual physical and mental health problems.
It was brought to my attention that there are a range of sports in this country that we focus on. I want to focus on one particular source of illegal drugs: those that are being bought online via the deep web—the online black markets. As people in this place know, I have given over 200 cyber-safety presentations to schools, to parents, to teachers and to community and business groups. I ask parents, 'When your children are online, where are they, who are they with, and what are they doing?' Most parents I speak to, honestly, cannot answer the question. Why is this so important? This is one of the reasons: relevant to this debate is the fact that this is where young people are buying illicit drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals, with very tragic results.
Preston Bridge was a teenager out celebrating with his school mates. One of them gave him a tablet, a drug a friend had bought online on Silk Road—an anonymous online website. It was bought for less than $10 a gram. Of course, no one knows what is actually in these substances. The effects are totally unpredictable, but they can include hallucinations, trying to fly, vomiting, aggression, paranoia and suicidal thoughts. Online, there is one after the other of these seemingly anonymous sites, based in Australia and overseas, that should be concerning all of us. The Silk Road website is just one example—a site that was shut down by the FBI. However, I understand that at least 10 alternative websites were operating very quickly. These online sellers often use general mail to post drugs to buyers. Clearly the network of individuals and companies is highly organised and the internet provides an ideal platform for their activities. And the online buyer also believes that they are anonymous and, in their view, can safely buy a range of illegal substances from performance enhancing drugs to narcotics. This perception of safety can come at a very high personal, physical and mental health cost. Online buyers have absolutely no idea of what they are buying. These are unregulated products. People have no idea what is actually in them, what they are ingesting or taking, or where these products were sourced. Many are not listed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
It can also be risky buying legal drugs online. Again, claims are made about the ingredients or composition of these; however, buyers can often not be certain about the contents. Online sites make some incredible claims about their products—all designed to lure the gullible buyer into parting with their money. However, they may not part only with their money; they may well part with their physical and mental health as well.
There has been a steep increase in the number of Australians searching online for peptides and hormones. There is evidence of the popularity of online stores for peptides and hormones. The Australian Crime Commission say that there has been a 255 per cent increase in border detections of hormones between 2009-10 and 2010-11. At the same time, the number of permits issued by TGA for lawful importation is very low—a dangerous and potentially lethal combination. At the same time, risks exist for those who buy from organised criminal sources.
I encourage parents, when I do these sessions, to know what their children are doing online and to be part of dealing with the issues and challenges young people face. This is their highway. Online drug access is just one reason for parents to be pro-technology and discuss what is happening online with their children. I am glad that the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications has an inquiry underway looking at the use of the Telecommunications Act by various agencies involved in the disruption of illegal online services—which, of course, includes this particular issue of illegal drugs online.
I am very committed to AFL football and have a history One of my colleagues was very concerned, when I mentioned the various sporting codes and other sporting teams, that I did not mention—and I apologise to the member for Hasluck—West Coast Eagles in Western Australia.
I want to talk briefly again about the online issues and I want to encourage every parent who may be watching tonight and following this debate: your children will use the internet forever. It is their highway—in the same way the highway was for you when you got your driver's license. There are a range of challenges and they are going to need your help. Be the friend and the person they can go to with whatever challenges they face online. There will be a number of them, and they will need your help. So be part of the discussion when you buy that first piece of technology. Discuss it with your children and talk about how you, as a family, are going to use this piece of technology. Discuss what its security strengths and weaknesses are, and discuss what sites they are visiting and what they are doing. Help them out as much as you can. Young people need people who will help them in this space. I hope it is their parents that help them; but, unfortunately, so often these young people tell me that it is not their parents that they can go to when they have a problem online. So it is important that we all understand the technology—
Debate interrupted.
In the great arguments and debates of this chamber, we too easily forget just how much we share in common as members, and as Australians; not least of which is the good fortune to be citizens of a nation that draws tremendous strength from its diversity.
For me, the outstanding group of students, teachers and parents who formed a unity council at John Paul College in my electorate, and who I acknowledge here in the public galleries today, serve as a reminder of that fundamental truth. They have asked me to stand and share their message of unity and understanding with the people's house of the Australian parliament. I thank them for that privilege.
My colleagues here know that I often speak in this place of my pride in representing one of the most diverse communities in Australia; with people from 189 different homelands living in our electorate alone. Thirteen of these backgrounds are represented on the unity council that I met with at JPC in Daisy Hill a few weeks ago, and again today.
The unity council sprang from the initiative taken by two fine young men—Faruk Bilgin and Raghe Abdi—who were concerned about the impact of events overseas on the way we treat each other here at home. It is a tribute to them and to the student body at JPC that they were soon joined by Gareth Clark, Rohan Daniel, Stephanie Hoang, Chloe Mo, Himanthi Mendis, Harris Nikwan, Jack Smith, Luke Van Wijk, Shannon Widrose, and Nereadine Wolmby. And it is a tribute to the school's leadership that they were immediately supported by their dedicated principal, Peter Foster, who is here; as is Julia Martinez Garcia, a teacher; Jessica Fern, a kindy parent, who also formed a unity club with other mums and dads; Helen Weissenberger the chair of the board; Allan Dennis, the head of the senior school; and other parents. They are all in on the secret, that achieving unity and understanding between people of different faiths, cultures and backgrounds is critical to unlocking the full value of Australia's multiculturalism.
I cannot share all of their stories in the time I have tonight, but let me share a few, because their experiences are pivotal to their understanding and compassion. Nereadine, a member of the Wik people from Far North Queensland, was brought up on teachings that pre-date European settlement, 'that every person is valuable' and should 'live together in harmony'. Stephanie, a Vietnamese-Australian, is from the first generation in her family not to have grown up experiencing conflict in her home country. Himanthi, a Sri Lankan-Australian, grew up in a country stricken with civil war and unrest. Gareth left South Africa two and a half years ago, a country still scarred by years of apartheid and segregation. All the students have their own stories. They are here in Canberra to share them with honourable members and senators.
Tomorrow they will host a roundtable with members from both sides of the House, to deliver and discuss these main points: that we must embrace multiculturalism; that knowledge is the key to understanding and respecting differences; and that the media needs to play a more positive role in getting this message out there. I am proud to see local students leading the charge to promote unity and understanding, not just in my community—as important as that is—but here in the parliament as well; the meeting place of our nation.
If we are serious about building a country which looks out for each other and looks after each other, we should follow their lead and example; because, as Rohan wrote, 'when we alienate our own people, we move the world from beneath their feet'. Or as Chloe reminds us: 'conflict is not caused by the fact that there is more than one religion, but by the spirit of ignorance and fear, the spread of which can only be regarded as the total eclipse of reason and justice.' And Shannon is right to say that, though our efforts may seem 'only a small step in advancing our world, it is a start, and why not start right now.
Thank you again to the unity council from John Paul College for your passion and your commitment and for the honour of representing you in this place.
The year 2014 marked the 60th anniversary of the first Education Week held in New South Wales. The theme for 2014, 'lighting the way to a better world' was reprised from the inaugural Education Week held in 1954. In my electorate of Dobell I celebrated Education Week with local students, teachers, P&C representatives and parents. As I visited numerous schools in my electorate, I shared my belief that education is the greatest gift we can provide our children.
With a sound and quality education our children are empowered to forge their lives as they choose. Australia is a country without prejudice, a country which offers her citizens the opportunity to pursue and excel in any chosen field. Throughout Education Week, I heard of the dreams and aspirations of Dobell students. It was a privilege to share this time with our future leaders.
Education Week was widely celebrated across the Dobell electorate, and I would like to share with the House some of the activities I had the privilege to participate in. One of the many outstanding schools in Dobell is Valley View Public School, where I joined with students to address a session of their student parliament. I was also afforded the opportunity to sponsor and present school leadership jackets to the school leaders. My sincere thanks to the principal, David Stit, and the Valley View community for making me welcome and for providing me with the opportunity to support the school community.
During the week I was joined by Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. Senator Ryan and I attended the Berkeley Vale Public School leaders' breakfast, where the senator delivered a special address to the school community and guests about the importance of leadership and education. The leaders' breakfast has become a tradition at Berkeley Vale Public School, bringing together leaders from the school and the broader local community. The breakfast provides opportunity for students to learn about positive role models in our community. I would particularly like to thank my student guide Emily for hosting me at the breakfast and wish Berkeley Vale Public School and the principal, Narelle Armour, all the best, as they prepare for their centenary celebration in 2015.
Senator Ryan and I also visited Brooke Avenue Public School to meet with the student parliament.
Our visit was enlightening, with robust discussions about the role of technology in schools and the potential for electronic voting in the future. It was particularly insightful to hear primary students preference to retain traditional voting methods. Meeting with the school parliament and hearing of the dreams and aspirations of these young people was humbling and strengthened my resolve to ensure young people of Dobell are afforded the same opportunities as young people of other electorates.
I would like to thank Principal Kerry Whellam and the Brooke Avenue Public School student parliament for welcoming us on the day and for their contribution to our community. Senator Ryan and I also toured the TLK Alesco School located at Berkeley Vale. The TLK Alesco School forms part of the Tuggerah Lakes Community
College. This non-government school is specifically designed to cater for the inclusion of young people who have been unable to complete their studies at conventional high schools. During our visit we met with Principal Peter Eddy, teachers and students to discuss how important the school was for the students who otherwise would not be able to complete their secondary schooling.
Senator Ryan later joined me in officially launching the Dobell Youth Advisory Committee. The Dobell Youth Advisory Committee provides opportunity for Dobell High School students to advise and represent their views directly to me as their federal member of parliament. The aim of the committee is to provide young people in Dobell the opportunity and mechanisms to make representations to the government and to enhance the general awareness and appreciation of the needs and talents of our youth throughout the general community.
I would like to thank Georgia Broadbent, Hayden Meerman, Ayden Khairis, Calah Des borough, Chloe Laksa, Jayden Warsley, Kayla Christensen, Nathan Barnett, Montana Rumore and Grant Robertson for being part of the inaugural Dobell Youth Advisory Committee. Thank you also to Wyong High School, who hosted the launch. Thanks also to participating schools: Berkeley Vale High School, Wadalba Community School, Mackillop Catholic College and Lakes Grammar—an Anglican school—for nominating the aforementioned students to participate and for making the launch a success. I look forward to working with the committee and sharing our progress with the parliament. Thank you again to Senator Ryan for taking the time to visit Dobell and for joining me in these outstanding Education Week activities.
I would like to conclude by thanking the principals, teachers and volunteers of the Dobell school community for their tireless work and dedication to our young people. Their commitment is most definitely 'lighting the way to a better world'.
We on this side of the House know that one of the most important, rewarding and smartest investments that any government can make is in our education sector and particularly to making sure that we have a school system in this nation which will produce the productive, the well rounded, the intelligent individuals who will shape and guide this nation's future. These are the people who will be our workers, the people who will be the parents and the people who will be the citizens who continue to build Australia's future. But, sadly, those opposite do not share this very basic view about the central importance of school education.
It should be said that one of the most destructive and unfair elements of this government's budget was of course in the $30 billion in cuts to school funding that are contained within it. The Prime Minister campaigned that there would be no cuts to education. He campaigned promising that no school would be worse off. He promised to honour the Gonski agreements. But, sadly, not one of those promises has been kept. The budget set out a total of $30 billion in cuts to schools, and the government has done that by pegging school funding to CPI indexation from 2018. The government's own budget papers show that CPI is trending well below three per cent. The education minister is currently ducking and weaving behind the scenes, going around telling stakeholders that this policy will be reconsidered and that of course they will find a way to renegotiate. But there is nothing in these hollow promises, because it is in the budget paper—it is there in black-and-white—that school funding will be absolutely gutted under those opposite. This was confirmed just last week in Senate estimates. There can be no doubt that these cuts are real and that these cuts will be once again confirmed in MYEFO.
The impact of CPI funding indexation is not on the never-never. It is in the budget right now and it is having an impact on our schools right now, and this parliament as a whole needs to stand-up and say that education is more important than that. We have heard from many stakeholders that this is not good enough. We know that the Catholic education commission have warned that the Abbott government's plan to link school funding to CPI would 'create significant pressure on schools and school fees'. We know that David Robertson from Independent Schools Queensland said:
This could only lead to a reduction in programs and educational quality or, in the case of independent schools, significant increases in fees.
But now we have found out that it is the government's own mates who are telling us exactly how devastating this would be. We have recently seen the leaked Queensland government documents saying what we all know to be true—that this will have a devastating impact on every school in Queensland and every school in Australia.
We know from Queensland government documents—that were obtained only under FOI—that Campbell Newman and his mates tried to keep secret, just one week after the $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals was announced in the budget, that Queensland analysis showed that 'over the period 2014-15 to 2024-25, there will be approximately $6 billion less funding available to Queensland schools under the new arrangements'. They also went on to say—and I quote—'approximately $2.7 billion less federal funding will be available for Queensland's government schooling sector'.
There is one group of people who have been silent about this. We know that Campbell Newman absolutely knew how devastating this move was but stayed silent on it and did not reveal the truth of this modelling. We also know that, whilst this would be the biggest cut this nation has ever seen to school funding, we have not heard a peep out of Victorian Premier Napthine. We know Premier Baird has had his mouth shut. We know that Premier Newman is absolutely complicit in this and we know that the arrogance of Colin Barnett is palpable. He is happy to shout from the rooftops about GST, but he seems not to have any concerns when $80 billion is ripped out of hospitals and schools across this nation. This is a disgraceful situation. But there is one thing that the Australian public can be absolutely sure of and that is that the Labor Party will not join with these Liberal premiers in staying silent about these cuts. We will stand up and fight for our education sector. We will fight for the future of our schooling sector, because we absolutely recognise just how critical this is to our nation's future.
I rise to paint a picture of climate change. A picture where Camden, just to the south-west of Sydney, is sweltering in 50-degree heat. Over in the west it is 51 degrees in the shade at Geraldton. Perth is 44, Geelong is 43, Wilcannia 48, Carnarvon 49½ and Southern Cross is 50 degrees. The death rate is 12 in 100,000 from heat-associated deaths—435 dead over the summer. This is not a Greens scare campaign but the Federation Drought, 118 years ago. It has never been as hot since.
Yet the Bureau of Meteorology claims it is getting hotter and hotter. How could it be getting hotter and how could last year, 2013, be the hottest year on record, if it was hotter back in 1896—if it was really hotter 118 years ago? Administratively it is relatively simple. The early years are simply wiped from the official record. Sure, you can find the values I am quoting at the Bureau's website, but they are not part of the official record, the Australian Climate Observation Reference—Surface Air Temperatures, or ACORN-SAT. The official temperature record, the record that the Bureau uses to report on climate change issues and temperature trends, only starts in 1910 and only uses data from 112 stations.
But it does not use the same 112 stations for the entire period. Consider Wilcannia, a really hot town in New South Wales, the town that recorded 48 degrees Celsius in the shade back in January 1896. Wilcannia has a record that starts in 1879 and the standard structure for housing a thermometer, a Stevenson screen, was installed in 1908. But data from Wilcannia is only incorporated into ACORN-SAT from 1957. Obviously if you add the hottest towns into a series later, then it will appear that it is getting hotter, even if it isn't. So, the Wilcannia values are added to ACORN-SAT only from 1957, but not the values as actually recorded at Wilcannia. For example, the maximum temperatures from 1973 are all dropped down by 0.55 degree Celsius. Obviously if you drop down all the temperatures before 1973 then all the later temperatures will appear warmer even if they are not.
This change to all the Wilcannia maximum temperatures before 1973 is listed in this 28-pages summary of 'adjustments' released by the Bureau following a series of article in The Australian newspaper by Graham Lloyd, drawing extensively from the work of Dr Jennifer Marohasy and Ken Stewart. The series in The Australian newspaper detailed similar corruption of the record at Rutherglen in Victoria, Amberley in Queensland and Deniliquin in New South Wales. The 28-page document makes for extraordinary reading. It says that maximum temperatures are dropped down by 0.56 degrees at Bridgetown before 1981; by 0.56 at Richmond, Queensland before 1952; and by 0.53 degree at Sale before 1970. The reason given is 'statistics'. At Cape Otway, an automated weather station is installed in 1994—consequence: a 0.5 degree Celsius drop in temperatures before 1994.
This 28-page document, titled ACORN-SAT station adjustment summary, shows that the temperature series for almost every site that makes-up the ACORN-SAT network that is used to report on official temperature change in Australia has been homogenised. In plain English, the raw data has been changed so that the past appears cooler relative to the present. The document tells us that 'statistics' have been used to homogenise the record for Wilcannia from 1957. But it does not tell us why the Wilcannia record does not begin in 1910. It is also unclear why ACORN-SAT only starts in 1910. The Bureau often claims that before 1910 there were no Stevenson screens, a structure now considered standard for housing thermometers, as though this is a good reason for excluding earlier records. In reality, many Stevenson screens were installed from 1889. How can the Bureau justify these actions?
Consider the accountant joke. Three applicants for an accounting job are asked the same question: 'What is one plus one?' The first two applicants both answer 'Two', but the third turns around, locks the door, pulls down the blind, then leans in and whispers, 'What do you want it to be?' I will be writing to the parliamentary secretary this week to request an inquiry into the conduct of the Bureau of Meteorology and the homogenisation process. We cannot have two sets of books at the Bureau and use fudged figures skewed to support a global warming hypothesis as the official records. These fudged records are being used for media reporting and scientific analysis. We have a scientific process being tainted right at the source by a government department. I seek to table this document from the Bureau of Meteorology.
Leave granted.
Yesterday it was my privilege to host students and teachers from Walungurru School. Walungurru, or Kintore, is a small Aboriginal community with a population of about 400, which is located 550 kilometres west of Alice Springs. People at Walungurru are mostly of the Pintupi people and speak Pintupi-Luritja as their first language. These people were dispersed from their homelands during the 1950s as a result of the British atomic tests. It was not until 1979 or 1980 that they were able to return to their country. Walungurru School has an enrolment of approximately 70 students and has an extremely good attendance record. I want to thank the students who came to visit me yesterday and congratulate the community for its commitment to education. It is a good example of how remote communities can, indeed, support the education of their kids.
On Monday morning in the Federation Chamber I spoke briefly regarding the process by which the Northern Territory government is giving schools greater autonomy in managing their own budgets through global budgeting. I said then and I am concerned now about the impact this will have on school communities and most particularly people who live in communities which are disadvantaged and where inequalities are already in evidence. I mentioned a visit to a remote school and a discussion with dedicated teacher about the challenges they faced even without the introduction of what now the Northern Territory government is introducing in global funding.
My comments in the chamber hit a nerve because since then I have had several bush teachers, principals mainly, contact me to point out the situation in their particular bush schools. They are concerned about the current lack of resources. One teacher in a two-teacher school told me their school has been understaffed throughout 2014. This person said: 'I began the year as the principal expecting a second teacher. Easter came and went and I assumed a second teacher would arrive before the end of the term. The second term came and went, and the third term.' This means that this is one teacher doing the work of two teachers for all of the year, as in the example I used earlier in the week. This is a school where every student bar one has English as a second language. The teacher is being told there are no teachers to take up a second position; as the school now only has an enrolment of 25 to 30, the school is technically a one-teacher school as far as the Northern Territory government is concerned. That is a travesty. It means this single teacher is being asked to look after potentially 25 to 30 kids on their own across all ages. That is simply not sustainable.
Despite all the boasts of the current federal government that they are tackling school attendance, it is clear that in these communities it is not working. Here is a teacher at the chalkface telling me that the NT government's solution to understaffing these schools most in need is using dropping enrolment and attendance as an excuse to reduce teacher numbers instead of the reverse. That is just perverse. As another teacher said to me in a communication only yesterday, 'Some of us teaching principals in small, remote communities are barely hanging on by the skin of our teeth.'
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have the government talking about the importance of school attendance and supporting school communities when they know that their friends in the Northern Territory are cutting funds in education. The simple answer is that, due to the CLP government's severe cuts to funding for education in the NT, over 150 teacher positions have been abolished in this school year alone and more cuts are on the way. This is despite the fact that the Commonwealth government has provided 200 teacher positions, reduced to 170 and now, we are told, possibly to 135. This is simply not sustainable.
We will not improve educational outcomes in bush communities by cutting funding to those schools. We will not improve the outcomes of those school communities unless we can maintain sustainable teaching outcomes, and that requires experienced teachers, not teachers who are treated like they are currently being treated by the Northern Territory government: with absolute contempt. They clearly are not concerned about the state of education in the bush; if they were, they would address these problems immediately. Instead they are ignoring them, and the people who are suffering are not only this generation but potentially the next generation of students in these schools. It is a travesty and it ought to be addressed. Tony Abbott and his government should bring the Northern Territory government to account.
This Saturday I am taking part in a very special event: the grand opening of the refurbished Anglican Parish Hall on Thursday Island. It has been a long process but one that I am very proud to have had some involvement in.
The Parish Hall, in the historic Quetta Memorial Precinct, has been a local icon on Thursday Island for more than 100 years. It is integral to the social history of Thursday Island and the wider Torres Strait and is recognised by the National Trust. Built in just three months, the church hall was officially opened on 21 January 1903. Many residents recall playing on the wide verandas as children, attending the church fete with stalls spread throughout the grounds, celebrating a family wedding or meeting to enjoy cultural dance. Some will remember playing on the basketball court near the old beach almond tree or standing-room only at the Thursday night dances. In recent years however, the church hall succumbed to decay, and a significant amount of work was needed.
During a visit to the Torres Strait in mid-2012 I was approached by Bishop Mabo of the Anglican Church, and he told me of his vision to return the hall to its former glory. I thought it was a fabulous idea and suggested that this was something that should be done by the community. I quickly got in touch with a group of key community contacts. The Parish Hall Restoration Committee was formed, and I am pleased to be the patron.
The key members of the committee are Chris Lemke , who is the co-chair and from the Grand Hotel; Bishop Saibo Mabo, who is co-chair and from the Anglican Diocese of North Queensland; Danica McAllister, who works in my office on Thursday Island as secretary. I am, of course, the patron. Grant Smith is the treasurer and from the Australian Federal Police. Elizah Wasaga is from My Pathway, Steve Heemi is from Queensland Police Service, Lou Tidswell is from the National Australia Bank, Leigh Lemke is from the Grand Hotel, Cath Cefai is from the Queensland Police Service, Bruce Ranga is from Ibis Pauline Ahwang is from DATSIMA, Ron and Robyn Humphreys are from Rotary, Daynee Mareko is from JCU, Cynthia Bunnell is from Customs, Jesse Sagaukaz is from My Pathway, Geoff Ball is from the Torres Shire Council, Leo Akee is from UMI Arts, Sandie Edwards is from Rebel Marine, Vonda Moar-Malone is from the Medicare local, George Martin is from Customs, Darlene Fell is from My Pathway and Regina Turner is from Tagai TAFE. As you can see, it is a whole broad range right across the whole community.
Two years on and we are absolutely amazed at what this committee and the broader community have achieved. Meeting every Thursday morning at the Grand Hotel, the committee has successfully brought together organisations from around the Torres Strait, giving the project true community ownership. These include the Grand Hotel, Ibis, My Pathway, Queensland Police, Rotary, the Queensland government, National Australia Bank, the AFP, the Anglican Diocese of North Queensland, Medicare local, Torres Shire Council and Torres Strait Tours. They have organised and run numerous sausage sizzles, comedy nights, raffles, chocolate drives, barbecues and other fundraising activities which the community has gladly put their hands in their pockets for. The parishioners of the Anglican Diocese have been consistently generous with their donations.
Other companies such as Sea Swift, CEA Training Opportunities, TAFE and Qantaslink have provided in-kind and financial support. The restoration has also provided a fantastic opportunity whereby local My Pathway RJCP participants have been trained up and worked on the project as long-lasting community use and significant.
After 12 months of intensive fundraising, the Parish Hall Restoration Committee reached its fundraising target for stage 1 works, and construction began. It was a big job involving the removal of the asbestos roof and replacement with Colorbond roofing, installation of new decking and railings on the veranda, new steps, painting throughout, the upgrade of the toilets et cetera. When I called past the parish hall on a visit last month I was amazed at the transformation. The new steps, freshly stained decking et cetera is just amazing.
My strongest congratulations go to everyone who has come together in partnership on this project. Saturday's grand opening will be a full-day affair. It will include a procession to the Anglican hall, traditional acknowledgements, a blessing of the hall, lunch, entertainment from local musicians and island dancing groups, an evening feast, formal acknowledgements and speeches. It will be a fantastic celebration. I am very much looking forward to it. My wife, Yolonde, and my daughter, Mackenzie, will be going up. We will be dressed in very colourful traditional island fare. I will have a beautiful, colourful shirt. It certainly makes me very proud to be the member for Leichhardt when I see communities such as this coming together to achieve something that is absolutely outstanding: restoring a very significant piece of Torres Strait history.
Order! It being practically 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 19 : 59
On Saturday I was honoured to join hundreds of delegates and affiliates of the Filipino community for the Filipino Communities Council of Australia national conference gala dinner, which was hosted this year by the Philippine Community Council of New South Wales in Parramatta. It was a great privilege to be amongst official dignitaries including Her Excellency Ambassador Belen F. Anota; Consul-General Anne Jalando-on Louis; representatives from scores of Philippines community affiliate groups from around Australia; and the winners of several awards for Filipino-Australians for their outstanding achievements across the spectrum, including leadership, youth representation and community organisation.
Each of these awards is highly prestigious and open to a hotly contested nomination process. Those assembled were delighted to pay tribute to, in absentia, our latest local Filipino-Australian heroine from Western Sydney, 15-year-old Marlisa Punzalan, winner of the X Factor 2014, whose amazing talent has propelled her from schoolgirl to superstar. Her absence was due to her recording commitments in Melbourne that evening, but her family, who represented her, were so proud, and the reception from those present demonstrated the equal depth of pride in her success being celebrated by so many Filipino Australians.
I was especially delighted on this occasion to be present to honour the winner of the prestigious Filipino-Australian of the Year Award. The rapturous reception for Juan Ignacio Trapaga—otherwise known as Ignatius Jones—was so genuine and was almost as moving as his heartfelt acceptance speech. Born in Singalong, Manila, in 1957, Ignatius Jones is the son of Basque-Chinese and Catalan-American parents. As he traced his roots throughout Filipino history and ethnicity he emphasised both the diversity of his ancestry and the multicultural beauty that is the Philippines. In particular, he noted that there was a time when some in his native homeland might be less than welcoming towards his background. Such attitudes are now a distant memory.
Ignatius Jones's achievements in stage, production and entertainment are as vast, successful and interesting as the man himself—from being director of Vivid Sydney to the Sydney 2000 Olympic ceremonies, from the Mardi Gras to East Timor's independence celebrations, from the Man from Snowy River: Arena Spectacular to my earliest memories of him on Countdown fronting Jimmy and the Boys, lamenting They Won't Let My Girlfriend Talk To Me.
Sincere congratulations, Ignatius Jones. You are an adornment to the Filipino diaspora, as evidenced by the profound outpouring of affection that was on display on Saturday night and the esteem in which you are held by both the Filipino community and all Australians every other night. Those who honour you were honoured in return by your comment that, for all your awards, it is this one which is most treasured by you. Ignatius Jones, Mabuhay!
As the chair of the Australia-Philippines parliamentary network, I associate myself with the member for Greenway's superb comments.
Last night, on a single website, there were 1,331 properties advertised for rent in the city of Mackay. Large traders are reporting a 60 per cent drop-off in trade; staff are being slashed; and thousands of families unable find work have left Mackay. Mining communities are suffering even more. Despite having a wealth of local skilled and experienced miners, two local mines fly in 100 per cent of their workforce from Brisbane and Cairns. That absurd situation is a result of the then Bligh Labor government's decision to approve 100 per cent fly-in fly-out operations at the Caval Ridge and Daunia mines, run by BMA.
At the time I called on the Bligh government not to allow this regional discrimination. Ironically, Labor are trying to distance themselves from the decision that they made when they were in government. The current Labor leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, visited Central Queensland recently to announce that, if elected, they will review the 100 per cent FIFO mines decision that her government had earlier made. So they will take a look at it. That is akin to a firebug setting fire to your house and then, after you have kicked them out, promising to have a close look at the fire if you let them back in.
Since before the approval was given in 2011, I have raised the issue in federal parliament; I have asked ministers to intervene; I have held numerous meetings with BMA; and I have spoken out against 100 per cent FIFO. Since she was elected last year, the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, has joined the fight against this regional discrimination. But it is only now, a few months out from the state election, that Queensland Labor has decided to have a look at the fire that they lit—if Queenslanders let them back in the house.
There has been some comment recently from other out-of-town political figures that seem to suggest some support for 100 per cent fly-in fly out mines, but, regardless of any other commentary by any other political figure of any political persuasion, my stance has not changed from day one on this matter—and it will not change.
While I continue to lobby the Queensland government for intervention, I am realistic enough to know there is little that can be done to put out the fire that Labor lit, because, if their approval is revoked by the Queensland government, BMA will no doubt find a legal or procedural way around that decision. So ultimately any change in these fly-in fly-out mines must come from BMA.
There is a groundswell of anger in my local community about FIFO and fingers are pointing directly at BMA. The member for Capricornia and I will be meeting with a group of concerned businesspeople and community people in Mackay on Friday, and I will be launching a community campaign against BMA's 100 per cent fly-in fly-out mines. The campaign's aim will be to convince BMA to do the right thing: relax or dump their 100 per cent FIFO policy at these mines and support the communities that have supported BMA.
I acknowledge the tremendous contributions of the Vietnamese Australian Welfare Association. Since the association's establishment in 1989 it has provided the local community of south-west Sydney with culturally and linguistically appropriate welfare services and social support. From delivering essential settlement services to addressing homelessness, domestic violence, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, the association's programs have greatly assisted and provided long-term support to many vulnerable Vietnamese and Indochinese families in my electorate.
I have had the privilege of working very closely with its president, Mr Ambrose Dinh, who has been one of the association's longest serving presidents. Ambrose and his predecessors have built a strong foundation for VAWA to flourish, even through the challenging times and limited funding that it faces. Under Ambrose's leadership VAWA has launched the Early Intervention and Placement Prevention Program aimed at assisting young children, and young people generally, who are experiencing problems at school and at home. Young people from ethnic backgrounds often find themselves veering onto the wrong path and getting into trouble due to cultural and language barriers and, particularly, breakdowns in relationships with families. VAWA's early intervention program provides these families with targeted counselling and continuing support, as well as providing the appropriate referral to various social services.
Besides this program VAWA also runs a number of other initiatives including the 'Safe Home for Life' and 'It Stops Here' programs. These raise awareness on issues such as child protection, homelessness and domestic violence. In May this year VAWA, together with the New South Wales chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia and the Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre, hosted a community event to launch the Problem Gambling: Help for Families and Friends booklet. This booklet, which is available in multiple languages, not only raises awareness about the issues of problem gambling but also provides advice about the numerous support services available to help people address this affliction.
These services, and other initiatives of VAWA, have had a profound impact on the quality of life and general wellbeing of many Vietnamese and Indochinese in my electorate. I would like to acknowledge the other committee members: Mr Vuong Nguyen and Ms My Linh Nguyen, both vice presidents; the secretary, Ms Thi Doan Trang; and the treasurer, a good friend of mine, Andrew Nguyen. Of course, the backbone of any non-profit organisation is the tremendous work of its volunteers. I would like to congratulate the association on its 25th anniversary. It takes a very special team to deliver these much needed services to our community.
Whilst it is commonly known that students develop and learn at varying rates, for some students, reading and writing presents a continual challenge. These are the students who struggle daily with the condition of dyslexia. It is important that we acknowledge and support these students and, for that matter, adults with the condition. Dyslexia is better understood as a persistent difficulty with reading and spelling. It is a language based learning condition affecting up to 16 per cent of Australians and impacts on the skills involved in accurate and fluent reading and spelling. Dyslexia does not affect general intelligence yet it is a lifelong condition which can severely impact on an individual's ability to complete mainstream education and training. The Australian Dyslexia Association believe:
Children identified 'at risk' should receive evidence based multisensory approaches in early intervention for reading & spelling and teachers must be able to identify, plan and tailor the needs of individual students.
I would like to highlight some of the great work being undertaken by organisations and individuals within Dobell to assist those with dyslexia. As elected members I believe we should all play an active role in creating a brighter educational future for our children. This is why I have joined with the Central Coast Dyslexia Association to provide information handbooks for primary schools in Dobell. The handbooks will help implement the advice of the Australian Dyslexia Association by providing schools with an additional resource to assist teachers and volunteers who work with students affected by dyslexia.
Recently I met with Jillian Zocher from the Central Coast Dyslexia Association who spoke about a successful implementation of this program at Blue Haven Public School. The Central Coast Dyslexia Association also holds workshops and information evenings in Dobell for parents, teachers and professionals which provide strategies and tools to help children with dyslexia. I also look forward to working with Jillian to raise awareness of the need for volunteers, including retired teachers, to help implement dyslexia programs within schools on the Central Coast. Programs implemented by the Central Coast Dyslexia Association provide children with dyslexia the opportunity to shine and, importantly, cope in a world that expects so much from numeracy and literacy skills.
I also acknowledge the outstanding work of Mr Jim Bond, a resident of Dobell, who for over 25 years has been a tireless advocate for people with dyslexia and was instrumental in securing technology to address dyslexia in our schools. Jim, who is affected by dyslexia, has championed the introduction of text-to-speech computer software in primary and secondary schools. Jim has also shaped and influenced changes to legislation, including the recognition of dyslexia as a disability in various legislation jurisdictions. Technological advancements to assist people with dyslexia now mean that a quality education for people with dyslexia is possible. I look forward to working further with schools in Dobell, the Central Coast Dyslexia Association and individuals such as Jim Bond to better support those with dyslexia within our community.
My electorate of Blair is blessed with many wonderful organisations.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 09:42 to 10:05
It is not the Gettysburg Address, the Sermon on the Mount or the 'I have a dream' speech, but I am pleased there are so many people present to listen to my speech today. My electorate of Blair is blessed with having many organisations who work tirelessly to improve the lives of people with disability. I speak today of Focal Extended, which this year marks its 40th year of providing service to people with a disability and their families and carers in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. It is a tremendous achievement.
It was my privilege to attend Focal's recent formal dinner at the University of Queensland Ipswich Campus to celebrate that milestone. The keynote speaker was former LNP senator Sue Boyce, who herself has a child with Down syndrome and who has had a longstanding interest in this area. The entertainer that night was Tim McCallum. I have had a lot to do with Tim in his work with MAX Employment, but he is a well-known performer, singer and public speaker. The event saw the launch of the commemorative book entitled 40 Years of FOCAL, edited by Judith Nissen and researched by Alex Tyson. It is a beautifully produced publication detailing the history of Focal and its achievements. It tells about a group of remarkable individuals who work together to transform an idea into a local institution.
Focal originated as what was known as the Challinor Centre, formerly known as a lunatic asylum many decades before, in 1973. In fact, the Challinor Centre is the current site of the University of Queensland Ipswich Campus. An enduring reminder of this remains in Focal's name, which stands for Friends of Challinor Aid League. From its start, Focal was established with a strong executive and significant community support.
I want to congratulate a number of people. I particularly want to congratulate the founding committee people, such as Betty McCrindle and Margaret Blakey, right through to today's committee members, so very ably led by President Roy Henderson and Vice President Tony Swords. I also want to commend Sonja Gilchrist in her role as CEO of Focal. I have had a lot to do with Sonja. She is doing an excellent job in managing the current challenges and planning head for this wonderful organisation.
Focal provides centre based group activities, direct in-home care assistance, an out-of-school-hours care program, and respite and support for families and carers. I congratulate Focal for the work they have done. There would not be a politician in the Ipswich and West Moreton region that has not been lobbied by Focal. Its role has evolved and expanded over many years. I look forward to its continued participation with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Its services are greatly valued by people in the Ipswich and West Moreton region and I am sure they will play an important role in the National Disability Insurance Scheme as it gets rolled out in Queensland in the years ahead.
So often in this place we seem to major in the minors, debating the small things, but there really are a couple of public sector issues that separate the two major parties. One of them is the approach to Work for the Dole. It has been anathema to the Labor Party, who traditionally regarded the activity as being the undermining of entry-level and low-wage jobs, but in reality we know that is not true. In reality, if you have actually worked in a small business, you would understand that taking on a Work for the Dole employee is completely different from taking on the highest performing and most impressive person at job interview and that the former definitely need high levels of support, care and training and that there are significant on-costs over and above those for a normal employee.
So to every small business out there, to every NGO and to every government entity that takes on a Work for the Dole worker, I just want to say from Canberra: thank you. There were 150,000 young Australians in Work for the Dole; that was eroded to 17,000 at the end of Labor's period. That is purely ideology. It is very much the 'let it rip' entitlement mentality to welfare that we have had for the last six years, which has to come to an end. I have made those comments very clearly in the Queensland and national press. It was all about welfare on tap for six years and there was no accountability for those payments. Well, I am sorry to say that that time has come to an end. Now there will be mandatory activity requirements for young people in good health who are not primary caregivers, and Australians would expect that—whether it is Drought Force, whether it is environmental programs or whether it is work experience.
Certainly it is the strong view of a significant number of the coalition backbench that that opportunity has to be expanded to the private sector ultimately—to those hundreds of thousands of small business owners with non-unionised workforces who spend their entire time poring over spreadsheets and delivering services to real employment to the economy. They are vital partners in the Work for the Dole experience. I have nothing against a job in government or with an NGO, but ultimately it is a small business employer who is a full-time supervisor of his staff. It is a small business employer who can provide cheek-by-jowl experience with real work. To the NGOs who give great support to their clients, I say thank you, but you are only three per cent of GDP. To the rest of the economy, we need to have young Australians getting their first foothold in a flavour of employment, and often that is working for one's dole. I congratulate the minister for the trials in 18 locations where we now have 4,300 participants, but we are a long way short of 150,000.
The Department of Human Services tell us that there are 700,000 young Australians under 30 who are forced to either work, study or train, or otherwise receive some form of income support. I do not regard chasing job interviews as activity. I do not regard finding the minimum way to get your payment as adequate. I want to see young Australians with a chance in life, and so often that can begin with work for the dole in the private sector.
Last week, Meaghan and Matthew Hick of Dartmouth, in the Mitta Valley, contacted my office to express their frustration with ageing telecommunications infrastructure in the town. The community has been putting up with landlines that drop out, public phones that do not work, slow internet speeds and poor, almost non-existent mobile phone coverage. The Dartmouth community is holding a public meeting today to demand better landline phone and internet infrastructure. Residents have invited Telstra, NBN Co and local media to the event to ensure that the community voices are heard.
I am pleased to see the community working together to lobby for better services, but it should not have to be this way. Publican John Scales should not have to miss out on bookings at his pub because his phone is not working. School students doing year 12 should not be forced to stop studying because the internet is down for days. The Hicks tell me that the copper lines from the exchange to each household and business in the town have been poorly maintained. There are several open asbestos pits throughout the town and this makes maintenance work difficult and very expensive. The equipment in the exchange cannot provide for any new ADSL connections, and the internet frequently slows to a crawl. Telstra upgraded the exchange in June this year and plan to do more additional work in the coming months, but these are only bandaid fixes.
I am concerned that the issues being raised by Dartmouth residents are symptomatic of a much more widespread problem. In Dartmouth, eventually, parts of the Telstra ageing fixed wire network and exchanges will be replaced by new NBN infrastructure. However, I am concerned about what happens during the lead-up to the full NBN rollout. Understandably, Telstra is reluctant to invest in fixed infrastructure and maintenance that will soon become redundant.
The recent progress in the rollout of the NBN in Indi is encouraging, but many communities are unsure whether they will be getting faster internet in 12 months or 12 years. They deserve better and deserve to know how long the wait will be. But in the meantime it is critical that the government provide the investment to improve and upgrade the networks in communities like Dartmouth. I call on the government to fix this problem. I join with the people of Dartmouth in saying it is just not good enough.
An honourable member: Who caused the problem?
Who caused the problem? Telstra's inability to fix up the problem we have got.
An honourable member: Well, it's Telstra's problem.
Well, it is an internet problem.
Honourable members interjecting—
Hey, this problem has been in the thing for 30 years. (Time expired)
This morning I would like to acknowledge two events in my electorate of Bass. The first is the contribution made by Northern Tasmanian local government stalwart Barry Easther OAM, who is one of Tasmania's longest serving councillors. The second is the recent passing of a wonderful servant of our community, Margaret Moore AM.
Barry Easther served for an incredible 31 years on the West Tamar Council in my electorate of Bass. His local government service started in 1983. In 2007, he was elected Mayor of West Tamar, and he has led the council ever since. In 2009, he was elected President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, a position he held until this month. Some may recall his national prominence in 2006 as the face of the local community during the Beaconsfield disaster. In 2009, Councillor Easther was a well-deserved recipient of an Order of Australia Medal for services to local government and the community. When he announced his retirement at the local government elections currently underway in Tasmania, there were numerous tributes to his long and distinguished service. I am pleased to say that Councillor Easther will be succeeded as President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania by the Mayor of Dorset, Barry Jarvis, also from my electorate of Bass. I wish Councillor Easther well in his well-earned retirement and Mayor Jarvis well in his new role as the head of LGAT.
Today I would also like to pay tribute to the late Margaret Moore AM, who passed away suddenly on 19 October. Mrs Moore was born in July 1934 and was a highly respected and active volunteer for over 50 years in Launceston, working for more than 16 organisations. Just a few days before her death, as President of the Inner Wheel Club of Launceston, Mrs Moore presided over the 60th anniversary luncheon of that organisation. Mrs Moore worked for the Launceston General Hospital Central Auxiliary for 40 years and only retired as president in September. She was a member and office holder of the Esk Masonic Lodge's Ladies Committee and a foundation member of the Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust as well as its Friends' Committee. Other Launceston organisations that benefited from Mrs Moore's tireless community service include the Girl Guides Local Association, Glen Dhu Primary School Mothers' Club, Kings Meadows High School Parents and Friends and Ladies Auxiliary, the Presbyterian Church, the Tasmanian Caledonian Society, Fred French Home Auxiliary, the Masonic Peace Haven Auxiliary and Friends of Peace Haven. In 2002, Mrs Moore was honoured as a Member of the Order of Australia, AM, and she was also made a Paul Harris Fellow by Rotary. Launceston has lost a true community champion with the passing of Margaret Moore AM, and I offer my sincere condolences to her family and friends.
I rise to give a voice in this parliament to literally hundreds of Hotham constituents who have written to me upset and angry at reports of Australian animals exported live to Gaza, who have been brutally tortured and mistreated. I want to read a couple of quotes from the letters I have received:
Australians are sick of seeing this horrific cruelty continuing year after year after year in an immoral industry that should have ended long ago.
Another quote:
I am sickened that this is STILL allowed to happen and nothing is being done to protect these animals from being exposed to hideous slaughter methods.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The views of these Australians are legitimate and passionately held, and they deserve the consideration of this chamber—including the member for Bass if he would mind giving me a few minutes to give voice to hundreds of people in my electorate who want to be heard by this chamber. My constituents are calling for the suspension of the licence of the company that was responsible for these animals. Many of them in fact are calling for the end of the live export trade altogether. I simply want to ask to the Minister for Agriculture: what is he doing about this problem? There are protections in place for animal welfare in live exports, but the Minister for Agriculture must take action. Labor created what is called the ESCAS system, a policy that ensures that, as animals move through the supply chain, the company that is getting the commercial benefit from exporting them is still responsible for their welfare. ESCAS provides animals being exported from Australia the tightest protections that are available to animals anywhere in the world. ESCAS is good policy, but only if we can prove that it works.
Protecting animal welfare is in the best interests of industry. I know that and they know that too because I have met with them and I have discussed with them. I have reinforced in my meeting with industry that the biggest risk to the live export industry is losing the confidence of the public that they can ensure the fair and humane treatment of animals. And I say to industry that, every time there is an incident of this nature, the public loses more confidence in your ability to effectively operate in this area. You have to clean up your act.
To the people who have taken the time to write to me about this, I want to say that your activism is really having an impact. In a democracy, when large groups of people feel so passionately about an area of policy, it is absolutely right and proper that people in this parliament sit up and take action. Today I am giving voice in this parliament to the views of those people and asking the minister simply to use the laws, as he is responsible for doing, to take action on this matter. And I am asking industry directly. It is time that you cleaned up your act. There are only so many times that, as members of parliament, we can stand in this chamber and express confidence in the current system and then weeks and months later be back here again dealing with this absolutely unacceptable mistreatment of animals.
It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak on something that is having a huge impact in my electorate of Deakin, and that is the repeal of the carbon tax. As all members in this place know, the government made a firm commitment to the Australian people before the last election that, should we be elected, we would immediately move to repeal the carbon tax. This was a commitment I was proud to campaign on when I sought election to this House last year.
There were many in Labor who tried to say that the matter was settled, that the carbon tax was here to stay and that we would not be able to repeal it. Even worse, the Labor Party dishonestly said that, even if we were able to repeal the carbon tax, energy prices would not decrease. These predictions of the Labor Party were just as bad as their budgetary forecasts in government.
Last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released consumer price index data for the September quarter of 2014, the first since the scrapping of the carbon tax. The numbers show that electricity prices had the largest fall since 1980. In my own state of Victoria, power bills are up to 12.4 per cent lower than they would have been had Labor and the Greens got their way and maintained the tax. We are proud to have delivered upon our commitment to cheaper electricity prices—no thanks to Labor, who did everything they could in the Senate to ensure the survival of the carbon tax.
In my own electorate of Deakin, an area of Melbourne with a thriving small business sector, the scrapping of the carbon tax is also having very favourable impacts. I have spoken to business owners in Deakin who have reported to me the real benefits that it is having on their bottom line. These include the Pauls Supa IGA, an independent supermarket with stores in Ringwood East and Heathmont, who have significantly lower electricity prices; Daisy's Garden Supplies in Ringwood, who have told me that they will reinvest their savings into employing more staff; and Alfatron, an electronic component manufacturer in Ringwood, which says it can now better compete against its European competitors.
Of course, reduced power prices will almost certainly bring down the cost of a range of goods and services throughout the economy. As this happens, this will provide further indirect benefits to business and consumers in Deakin and indeed throughout the country. During Labor's time in office, power prices rose by as much as 101 per cent, bringing many small businesses to breaking point. That is why we have scrapped the carbon tax. We are the party that are committed to lower power prices for families and businesses. Bill Shorten and Labor want to reverse all of this. I look forward to the Labor Party going to the next election promising to reinstitute the carbon tax!
This year Doonside Technology High School celebrated 50 great years. They were great not only over the space of that time but also in their current years, when they have been making great improvements. I want to reflect in my contribution today on their successes. There are 67 terrific schools operating in the Chifley electorate, but today I think it is important that we spotlight an achievement that Doonside Technology High School are right to be proud of.
This week they are sharing the limelight of an incredible result in their year 9 NAPLAN testing results. In every sector—in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation and numeracy—year 9 students at Doonside Technology High School have improved on last year's results, so much so that as a group, in the area of writing, they have moved from 44 points below the state average to be eight per cent above the New South Wales mean average, in one year.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
Thank you, Member for Lalor, because I think it will mean a great deal to them to know that not only can they savour the success of that huge bump in performance, but also they get recognised for it.
Last year, 30 per cent of the year 9 students at Doonside were operating at below the national average in numeracy. Twelve months on, it is now just seven per cent. So they are making great headway there. This is in a school where 14 per cent of the enrolments are Indigenous and six per cent are from the continent of Africa. As the great school principal there, Joe Begnell, puts it, they are arguably the most marginalised students in all of New South Wales. Another 10 per cent of the enrolments are students with distinct and measured learning disabilities. Almost all of them sat for the NAPLAN this year.
This year, the Aboriginal students in year 9 achieved a 30.9 marks growth in the writing category over last year's figure. That is against an overall New South Wales fall of 0.09 marks for Aboriginal students. It is a remarkable effort. Mr Begnell is a proud principal. He should be credited for his work. He has also modestly credited 'keen students who want to learn', and his great team of caring teachers have demonstrated great results in the first ever round of Gonski funding for these incredible improvements. Our kids, given opportunities, resources, keen teachers and incentives to succeed, will seize those opportunities and succeed. I certainly think it is important to recognise their efforts here today.
The Assistant Minister for Education, Susan Ley, loves Darwin almost as much as I love Darwin. She has visited my electorate of Solomon many times to canvass the views of stakeholders in her portfolio. Last month, I had the privilege of again hosting the assistant minister in my electorate. We held a successful childcare roundtable. I would like to thank the following stakeholders for coming along and sharing their thoughts on how we can improve early learning opportunities for Australian families, particularly in my electorate of Solomon. The people who attended were: Betty McKinlay from the Karama Child Care Centre; Louise De Bomford-Scott from La Creche on The Avenue; Kelly Monos from Murraya Children's Centre; Ferdous Mitchell, who is a good friend of mine, from Rising Stars in Rosebery; Brenna Schroeder from Nakara after school care; Laura Mulready from Dripstone Children's Centre; Natalie Rossiter-Rachor from Dripstone Children's Centre; Principal Anthony Hockey from St Paul's Catholic Primary School; Letitia McDonald from the Stuart Park Child Care Centre; and Tamie Needham from the Stuart Park Child Care Centre.
At this roundtable, we discussed many issues particularly unique to the Top End in the childcare sector, from staffing and qualification issues to overpopulation and waiting lists. During the assistant minister's visit, we also visited Marrara Christian College where we were able to meet with some students and to hear firsthand about the success of some of the programs they have been running. We also had the pleasure of visiting Murraya Children's Centre, where Kelly Monos was proud to show us around her childcare centre and show us the great work they are doing in caring for our young children in the Top End.
I would like to put on the record that I think Assistant Minister Ley is doing a fantastic job in leading the Productivity Commission's review of child care in Australia. Stakeholders in my electorate told me that they were very grateful to have the opportunity to once again speak firsthand and very candidly to the assistant minister to raise concerns around childcare issues, particularly in the Territory. Territorians know that we are unique to the rest of Australia. We have a lot of shift workers and a lot of young families, often with little or no extended family in the region. This leads to an increased reliance on childcare providers. As the member for Solomon, I will continue to work hard to make this a priority. The Top End is fortunate to have a minister responsible for child care who is so interested in providing a flexible and affordable childcare system that will suit our unique and differing family units in Darwin and Palmerston. (Time expired)
It is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Brian Sambell, mayor of the town of Gawler, who, at the age of 71, is retiring from local government but not from business. He intends to stay in the tourism trade and you cannot get a better guide for bush Australia than Brian Sambell. I would particularly like to pay tribute to his wife Glenys, who met Brian all those years ago at a Templars dance, has been by his side ever since and has been a very good of Gawler. Brian and I have worked together on a number of projects but I should say at the outset that I regard him as a very close friend and a good mate. Because of that relationship, we have been able to achieve an awful lot together.
The town of Gawler and the federal government in my time as the member for Wakefield have completed the Evanston Gardens Community Centre and library, which is a very important project. It puts in place community facilities for the expansion of Gawler. It is one of the few times when community facilities have been put in place in advance of the expansion rather than after it. I have had some experience of living in suburbs which have been crying out for facilities, so it is good that the town of Gawler looks forward to the growth of Gawler in providing the facility. We also worked very closely on the Gawler rivers bike path, a very important project for Gawler which really has transformed the river area and has allowed for the bike path to expand to Hewett and further to build a link to Tanunda and the Barossa Valley. It is a very important tourism and social link. The member for Barker and I opened the bike path and it is important to his electorate as well. We share some common interests and it is nice to have them acknowledged in the parliament.
At the age of 71, Brian is an active citizen of Gawler who still rides in the 24-hour trial at Kapunda, which extends into the Barker electorate and Truro. He is a really good citizen and a really good businessman, a bit of an icon of Gawler. It is sad that he is retiring from local government but I know he will continue to be a good citizen of Gawler. He is a really good mate of mine and I rely on him for advice on local issues now, as I will in future. I commend him to the national parliament.
The past fortnight has been significant for people in my electorate because the coalition has taken another important step towards delivering a positive growth plan for the Central Coast. The first commitment made in our growth plan, a very important commitment, was to deliver a purpose-built Commonwealth agency with 600 local jobs in Gosford which, in turn, will help to create even more jobs, hundred more jobs right across the coast. The Central Coast is right behind us in their determination to help us deliver this important commitment. Our local chambers of commerce, our community groups, our local residents and our local businesses are all right behind us. I thought we had everyone on board backing the Central Coast and the creation of more new jobs into a Gosford—until now. The Central Coast community and local businesses have now learnt that, while they have the support of the coalition government, they do not have the support of Labor. Just this week, the Labor opposition once again failed the Central Coast when they used this vital investment in Gosford in a bizarre swipe against the Australian Taxation Office and the government.
It would appear that Labor want fewer jobs in Gosford, not more. In contrast, at the last election we committed to deliver 300 jobs and a Commonwealth agency into Gosford and in the budget the Treasurer announced we would double that to 600. this is game changer for the Central Coast. It reflects the hopes and aspirations of people in my electorate who want more local jobs and more opportunities so they can work in the region in which they live. Expressions of interest were called to build the agency on 16 October and I have already heard from many locals who want to get involved in this significant project for Gosford. It is important because 40,000 commuters do not have enough of these opportunities at the moment.
For six years, Labor failed to invest in Gosford in such a significant way. In contrast, under a coalition government we are already seeing more job opportunities for people in just one short year.
But, just this week, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, hopelessly failed to back these 600 important jobs for Gosford. When he was asked on ABC Central Coast radio just yesterday if Labor would wind back the tax office on the Central Coast if elected, the member for Fraser was unable to give a guarantee or a definite commitment, instead saying, 'We would formulate election policies in 2016.' What does this say about Labor's commitment to the Central Coast? The member for Fraser, it would seem, is against more employment opportunities on the Central Coast, and the former member for Robertson, now a Labor senator in the other place, is strangely silent.
After six years of Labor inaction, with no initiatives to boost employment on the Central Coast, do the people of Robertson really have to wait until 2016 to hear Labor's plans? Only the coalition has a positive plan for the Central Coast that means more jobs, more opportunity and a better future for our region.
Today I pay tribute to the life of Joan Yeo, who died in the early hours of 9 October, of motor neurone disease, at her house in Bowral. She was 72. She was surrounded by her husband, Phil, and daughters, Claire and Fleur, joined shortly thereafter by her son, John, who flew home from London.
Joan was a stalwart and much-loved member of the Southern Highlands branch of the Labor Party for over 40 years. She was a dedicated member throughout the seventies and eighties, and, even when the numbers were small and the finances were thin, Joan was always there to do her bit. She was a strong woman and she was passionate: passionate about her politics and passionate about the rights of women. She did not just talk the talk; she walked the walk. She was involved in everything over her life.
She joined the Labor Party in 1972, inspired, like so many of her generation, by the Whitlam revolution. When the Whitlam education reforms gave her a second chance at education, she studied by remote education to finish a degree in French at the University of New England. She achieved high distinctions and was awarded the 'most outstanding external student' in her graduating year. They were certainly right. Joan was an extraordinary woman, an outstanding woman.
Through her life she worked as a teacher, she worked as a court officer in the Bowral and Moss Vale courts and she worked for over 13 years as the assistant coroner in the Southern Highlands. She was the first female president and secretary of the combined Southern Highlands branches of the Labor Party. She gained a place on merit on the hospital board and established the Southern Highlands branch of the Women's Electoral Lobby, where she met her dear friend Kerry Murray, who sadly passed away last year.
After being diagnosed with motor neurone disease in May 2012, Joan knew she did not have much time left with us, but she was not going to waste a moment. With her husband, Phil, Joan used her time to learn all that she could about the disease, and she was going to ensure that the over 1,900 people who are diagnosed with motor neurone disease living in Australia, and close to half a million people worldwide, could actually benefit from her energy. For them, the cause is unknown and the treatment is currently minimal. Joan knew that it did not have to be that way, so she participated in various research trials, awareness activities and support groups.
Joan's memorial service was held at the Bradman Museum in Bowral. It was attended by over 100 people. It is a great tribute to Joan that she was able to form and maintain many friendships over her long life. I want to pay particular tribute to Joan's dear friend Jan Merriman and to Joan's husband, Phil, who helped me in the preparation of this tribute.
Children in South-East Queensland who are affected by a life-limiting condition, and the families of these children, have something very exciting to look forward to. Hummingbird House is the first joint initiative of Queensland Kids and Wesley Mission Brisbane, operating as Queensland's only children's hospice.
Currently an estimated 3,700 children living throughout Queensland have a life-limiting condition. For many years, there has been a gap in services for children who require palliative care and their families. Hummingbird House will go some way to help fill that gap. I would like to acknowledge that this gap was recognised at Senate estimates back in 2012 and by the Queensland state government.
Hummingbird House will operate as an eight-bed, 24/7 medical facility where children will have access to physicians, nursing support, pain and symptom management, both scheduled and emergency respite and end-of-life care. It will be built on just over an acre at Chermside on Brisbane's north side at Wesley Mission's Wheller Gardens site. The existing building is currently being demolished, and I have been updated that the new building will be operational this time next year.
There is $5.5 million from the federal government going towards this project as well as $5.5 million from the state government. I would like to particularly thank the Health Minister, Peter Dutton, for funding this project of Hummingbird House. It is much needed, Peter, and I certainly do thank you. I also thank the Queensland state government for their funding. I would like to particularly acknowledge Kerri-Anne Dooley, the LNP candidate for the state seat of Redcliffe, who works for the Wesley Mission, but who has also been a strong advocate for Hummingbird House and for making people in my electorate aware of the important need it will fill.
I must thank Gabrielle and Paul Quilliam, who are the cofounders of Hummingbird House. Gabrielle and Paul, thank you for your passion, your advocacy and the sacrifice that you have made in making this a reality. I also thank my good friends Mark and Fiona Engwirda. My wife, Louise, and I have known Mark and Fiona for about 12 years. Their third child Kate died at the age of two. She was born as a sick child who needed a lot of operations. What I got to see, through my involvement with Mark and Fiona, was that Hummingbird House would provide much support to families, not just to the children, because families have as much of an impact on them. It can affect their finances and marriage, and it can affect the other siblings in the household who do not get to spend as much time with the parents.
So, well done to everyone who has been involved in making this a reality. We look forward to the opening of Hummingbird House next year.
I rise today to raise the issue of health care on behalf of the people of the Lalor electorate, because they, like me, are confused. They are confused because, when they compare the Primary Health Networks with Medicare Locals, they can hardly get a cigarette paper between the two. Information on Primary Health Networks on the Department of Health website states that PHNs will be:
… working directly with GPs, other primary care providers, secondary care providers and hospitals. Care will be better coordinated across the local health system so that patients requiring help from multiple providers receive the right care in the right place at the right time. PHNs will work with other funders of services and purchase or commission high quality, locally relevant and effective services for groups of patients at risk of poor outcomes.
This is all highly valuable work. Then, we have what was written about Medicare Locals in a press release from the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, 2011, which stated:
… the new Medicare Locals will have the important role of working with GPs, nurses, allied health professionals, Indigenous health organisations and Local Hospital Networks to identify and respond to gaps in local health services—and help patients and professionals navigate our complex system more easily.
My question is: what is the difference between a Medicare Local and the new Primary Health Networks? The answer, I fear, is: not a lot. There is, however, one significant difference—the word 'local' is no longer a feature. It is disappointing that the Abbott government is closing Medicare Locals at a cost of almost $200 million, which is money that could be better spent providing health services.
Medicare Locals were established after careful research and significant input from those who were expert in the provision of health services. The model is sound, and the only reason for closure, it seems, is political. I have met with South Western Melbourne Medicare Locals several times over the past 12 months, and I have found them to be very well informed. In fact, their knowledge of our current health services and the features of health locally is outstanding. They understand the local issues and they are doing very important work.
My question is: with the new version of Medicare Locals at a cost of $200 million, when you look at the map, the difference that you see, quite clearly, is that in metropolitan Melbourne the three new super Medicare Locals all meet in the CBD of Melbourne. My concern is shared by those locally. Does that mean that the head offices will all be in Carlton in North Melbourne and the local will be gone forever?
This morning I want to talk about the Rural Ambassador Program and in particular the associated Rural Ambassador awards. The program is run by the Agricultural Societies Council of South Australia, and the awards highlight the importance of youth in rural South Australia, in particular in the agricultural shows movement. Being involved in the awards gives young participants a forum to express their opinions and ideas for our rural communities. I have spoken previously in this place about my belief that agricultural shows and field days promote the best of what local communities have to offer and provide an invaluable chance for regional families to exchange ideas and to socialise with those who hold common interests, coming from farming families.
I appreciate how important these events are in strengthening regional communities. This is not just true of the produce and livestock exhibitors; they demonstrate the calibre of people who work on the land and in our regional communities, and those in the towns who help support them. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Rural Ambassador Program and the outstanding opportunities it provides to young people to travel locally, nationally and overseas, showcasing our people to the rest of Australia and the world and enabling those ambassadors to come back to their homes with new-found experiences and knowledge which further strengthens their communities.
The award enables young participants to experience and develop closer links with primary industry sectors in South Australia and represent their show society at local, association and state levels—and potentially, of course, the national level. The Rural Ambassador award identifies and encourages enthusiastic, skilful and industrious young people who have been involved in their local community or agricultural show. This year the electorate of Barker has been fertile ground for producing people able to meet this noble criterion. The 2014 winner was Brooke Harvie, from Naracoorte in the south-east of South Australia. The two runners-up were Luke Nuske of Pinnaroo, a Barker local, and for today's purposes we will adopt Thomas Darmody, from Kapunda, just outside the electorate.
I also want to pay tribute to the organisations that support this award—in particular, the Stock Journal, who have for a very long time dedicated themselves to promoting and informing regional communities. They have been a central part of helping the agricultural sector become the powerhouse that it is in Australia today. I congratulate the winners of the Rural Ambassador Program awards for 2014 and I strongly encourage all young people in my electorate to get involved with this fabulous initiative.
In Bendigo a conversation has begun—a conversation that aims to highlight the hidden poverty that exists within our community. Local media and community organisations and leaders, in the lead-up to Anti-Poverty Week, chose to highlight some of the concerns that they have about the increasing levels of hidden poverty. We are talking about people who quite often do not get recognised as living below the poverty line—people who are surviving on very small incomes, predominantly older people, single people, struggling to pay the bills. They may have their own home but are being crippled by increasing cost-of-living pressures such as rate increases, electricity prices and of course, now, the cost of petrol, going up and up as we speak.
During Anti-Poverty Week this conversation about hidden poverty brought together 30 seniors from the community of Eaglehawk at the Eaglehawk Community House. Residents were forthcoming in sharing their concerns and their experiences. One woman said it was especially difficult for single mature people who had retired to pay their rent and to compete in the private rental market. She said at least 50 per cent of her income goes on rent every single week. Another resident raised concerns about the cost of transport. He had travelled from Tunagulla, which is about 40 kilometres outside of Bendigo. He said that, because of a lack of a transport, a car was the only option, and the concern about the impact of the cost of petrol on his household budget was continuing to be a factor.
These are some of the pressures that local people face every day. They are the hidden pressures, the poverty pressures, that do not often get highlighted when people think of poverty. One resident, who is surviving on the pension—and she said that: 'I'm just surviving on the pension'—challenged the Prime Minister, and all of us, to pay rent and to catch public transport whilst living on the age pension, and to see how long the Prime Minister survived on such a low income.
For many years now the debate around the economy has only focused on numbers—on budgets. It is time that the debate started to focus on the social impact of our decisions. We need to stop looking just at the budgetary impacts, the economic impacts, and start looking at the community and social impacts. It is important to ensure that social impacts on the community are also taken into account.
I rise this morning to speak about a number of matters that have been brought to my attention by local constituents and residents in my electorate of Hindmarsh. Over recent months I have been talking to and meeting constituents at street corner meetings, shopping centres and listening posts and when doorknocking throughout the electorate. In addition I have enjoyed dropping in to local sporting clubs—such as the Morphettville Park Cricket Club; the Edwardstown Cricket Club; the Ascot Park Bowling Club; the Edwardstown Bowling Club; and the Holdfast Ring Bowl Club, which I think is the only one of its kind in the world—to watch their local games and speak with members. I have also been attending a number of year 12 graduation ceremonies at schools throughout my electorate, including those at Nazareth Catholic Community College and St Michael's College, where I have spoken with teachers, students and parents.
While I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting so many wonderful people, one issue continues to be raised with me by residents. It is one of the biggest issues in South Australia at the moment: the emergency services levy. The levy has been imposed on the South Australian public by the South Australian Labor government in a very misleading and deceptive way.
Earlier this year, the state Labor government increased the emergency services levy, with some bills increasing by around 1,000 per cent. Farmers, schools, businesses and charities were all hit by the levy. Furthermore, the money raised from the increase will not go towards funding emergency services, which was the design of the levy. Whilst Labor in South Australia has been extremely misleading, blaming the emergency services levy on the federal government—as they blame everything on someone else—residents in Hindmarsh understand that this is a blatant cash grab by the Labor government after 12 years of financial mismanagement.
I thought it would be useful to give everyone the facts of the Australian federal government's commitment to funding health and education in South Australia. This year the federal budget provided a 27 per cent increase in the Australian government's school funding for South Australia over four years—a funding increase of $275 million—and, in health, a 34 per cent increase in hospital funding over four years, equating to $333 million. Just as importantly, $1 billion has been allocated for the North-South Corridor—something I fought hard to obtain and worked with the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Jamie Briggs, on—which includes the Torrens to Torrens project just on the outskirts of my electorate.
The Australian government is increasing funding for health, education and infrastructure. Labor in comparison has cut its own spending, having failed to manage its finances over 12 years. As Premier Jay Weatherill and Treasurer Mr Koutsantonis try to blame Canberra, it is their government that cut $1,476 million from the South Australian health budget and $210 million from the education budget, while increasing taxes.
The reality is that South Australia is the highest taxed state—so it cannot blame not receiving revenues—and also has the lowest growth. So there are some real problems that the South Australian Labor government is causing.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:5 4