Today is most likely the last sitting day, and it is appropriate that we should reflect on the year that has been and offer some thoughts as to the year that is to come. While every year is remarkable in its own way, for many, 2014 will be more memorable than most. Much has happened over the past year: expected events like the G20, unexpected events like the MH370 and MH17 tragedies and also the emergence of the ISIL death cult in the Middle East and elsewhere.
As the parliament winds down for the year, it is right and proper that we all should acknowledge the families of those lost in the MH370 and MH17 tragedies. Our thoughts are with them at this sad Christmas. The search for MH370 continues in the Indian Ocean. It should be completed by the middle of next year. It is one of the most difficult searches—if not the most difficult search—in human history over a vast area of the seafloor. Nevertheless, it is being conducted with the best technology that we can muster, and let us hope that we are in a position sometime before the middle of next year to resolve what is currently the most baffling and perplexing mystery of our time.
Similarly, the quest for justice for the families of the MH17 victims goes on. It is important that the perpetrators of this unspeakable atrocity be brought to justice. I should also acknowledge the 500-plus Australian personnel who were deployed to Europe as part of Operation Bring Them Home. They were reflecting Australia at its best. On the same note, I should particularly thank Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston who not only coordinated our efforts in the Ukraine but has been coordinating recovery efforts in the Indian Ocean in respect of MH370.
This year a new horror burst upon the world: the ISIL death cult which swept out of eastern Syria into northern Iraq. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were uprooted and disrupted by the dreadful advance of this barbaric force. We have all seen on our TV screens the beheadings, the crucifixions, the mass executions and the sexual slavery. This is an utterly barbaric outbreak. The ISIL death cult, which I refuse to call Islamic State because it is neither, has declared war upon the world, and Australia, to its credit, has responded. Our thoughts, our prayers and our best wishes are with the Australian military personnel in the Middle East right now, both our air contingent, which is engaging in effective strikes against the death cult, and also our special forces contingent working with the Iraqi security forces.
There has been much contention in this parliament, as you would expect. It is right that the policies of the government be exposed to scrutiny in this parliament. It is right that the government and the opposition fiercely debate the issues in contention. Notwithstanding all the contention, all the controversy and all the political static, I think this has been the year of delivery from this government for our country. The carbon tax has gone, the mining tax has gone, a massive infrastructure spend is underway and three free trade agreements, a decade in the making, have finally been negotiated, and the benefits of these agreements should shortly be flowing for our exporters and for our consumers.
As the year began, our country faced two intractable problems: the boats and the budget. I think we can say that the illegal boat problem has largely been addressed. I do not say that it is finally solved. No problem of this magnitude is ever finally solved. Nevertheless, thanks to the policies of the government and the professionalism of our armed forces, police, customs personnel and others, we have had almost no boats over the last 12 months. Long may that continue.
Another intractable problem, the budget, is being addressed. I cannot say that this problem has been fully addressed—far from it. Nevertheless, a good start has been made, and whatever criticisms people might make of this government, I do not think anyone could question our clarity of purpose and our strength of character when it comes to tackling this particular issue. And it must be tackled. This country cannot go on living way beyond its means, and this government is determined to ensure that the task that has been begun this year is successfully prosecuted next year.
Then, of course, on a high note, there was the G20. Hosting the most extraordinary gathering of leaders our country has ever seen was obviously a great moment for the city of Brisbane. I thank the people of Brisbane for putting up with the inconvenience over that weekend. I congratulate the officials and the Queensland Police for the way the G20 was carried off. Just for a moment, we here in Australia had a chance to see ourselves the way the world sees us—as a country which is as free, as fair and as prosperous as any on earth and, indeed, as a country which is the envy of people all around this globe of ours. It was a fragrant moment for our country, a fragrant moment for all of us.
Madam Speaker, it would be remiss of me to see out the year without thanking you for the work that you do—you have a difficult job and I think that you have performed it with grace and humour. I refrain from talking about who or what might make your life harder than it could otherwise be, but you do your work well. I thank the clerks for the work they do—the clerks are the permanent guardians of the traditions of this House. I thank the attendants for keeping this place running smoothly and the Hansard staff for recording our words, hopefully of wisdom, for posterity. I also thank the guides, who make our fellow citizens welcome and better informed about the workings of this place; the Comcar drivers, who get us around here safely and efficiently; and, of course, the cleaners, who ensure that every morning our offices are bright, sparkling and welcoming—I particularly thank Anna, Maria and Lucia, who look after me, as they have looked after previous prime ministers.
This has been a year when our threat level has risen from medium to high. The impact of that has been felt around this building. I thank everyone who keeps us safe—the Australian Federal Police in particular, our security service and everyone who enables us to do our job as well as we can. I thank the Parliamentary Library for the work they do to make us better informed and sometimes even wiser than we might otherwise be.
I do extend compliments of the season to the Leader of the Opposition and to his colleagues on the opposition benches. Yes, there has been plenty of contention across the table, as you would expect. There are two fundamental tasks of government—national security and economic security—and on at least one of those tasks we have received a great deal of cooperation from the opposition; as I trust, were the positions reversed, a different government would receive from us. John Howard often used to say that the things that unite us are bigger and more important than anything that divides us, and certainly that has been abundantly demonstrated this year on national security.
I thank the Australian Public Service for their work over the last 12 months. I particularly acknowledge the work of my own department. I should, in this place, pay tribute to the just-retired head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Ian Watt. Dr Watt is perhaps the finest public servant of his generation. He entered the public service 40 years ago and had a brief break in academe before returning to spend 30 distinguished years in the Australian Public Service, 13 of those as the secretary of four departments—Communications; Finance, where he was the longest serving secretary of the finance department; Defence; and, most recently, Prime Minister and Cabinet. He was the quintessential professional public servant. He was careful, cautious and considered but he always got things done and that is the hallmark of the Australian Public Service—they always get things done. He leaves big shoes but I am sure that they will be amply filled by his successor, Michael Thawley—a very distinguished servant of our country who brings to the Australian Public Service the benefits of a decade in senior levels of business. It is good to have this cross-pollination between the public sector and the private sector and that is exactly what we will get from Michael Thawley.
I thank all my colleagues. The Deputy Prime Minister, who sadly is still recuperating from illness, has been a fabulous colleague and friend over the past 12 months; the foreign minister and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has had a stellar year; my senior colleagues in the Senate—including senators Abetz and Brandis—have all done well; and the Leader of the House, the member for Sturt—who is obviously detained on pressing business—has done the kind of splendid work you would expect of him and I acknowledge his efforts. I thank my staff—led by Peta Credlin, the fiercest political warrior I have ever worked with—for everything they have done. All of us ride on the shoulders of our staff. I thank my family and we should all thank our families because none of us could do any of this without the forbearance and support of those who love us.
Finally, though this is the season of goodwill, it should not blind us to the fact that the coming of Christmas does not protect people from the vicissitudes of life—if anything, life's tragedies are more pronounced at this time of year. This Christmas marks 10 years since the Boxing Day tsunami and it marks 40 years since Cyclone Tracy in Darwin. Of course, it also marks 100 years since the start of World War I and on this centenary I am reminded of the work of Charles Bean, the official historian of the Great War. He was witness to the most bloody and brutal conflict in human history. Yet, the worst of times can sometimes bring out the best in people—we are all aware of the famous story of the British and the German soldiers fraternising in no man's land on Christmas Day 1914 playing soccer and singing Christmas carols together. On Christmas Eve 1916 Charles Bean wrote some words which unite believer and unbeliever, Christian and non-Christian. He wrote:
I am not a religious man … But this day represents the birth of a very precious ideal into the world; and the observance of it is the sign of the attachment … to the highest ideals yet imported on the earth.
This is a significant time. It is a significant celebration. May it be, this year as it is in all years, a time to reflect, a time to be with family and loved ones, and a time to rededicate ourselves to our highest ideals.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I begin by wishing you and all of those who sit in the big chair a very merry Christmas and a relaxing break from standing order 94(a). I am deeply conscious that there is still one more question time!
At this time of year our first thoughts are with Australians who will not be spending Christmas with the people they love. I am talking about our defence forces stationed around the world and our emergency services personnel on duty through the day and night—ambos, firies, nurses and police. And, of course, I am talking about the heroes who do not wear a uniform—everyday Australians who are working unsociable hours to make ends meet and to make our society function. I wish to record my appreciation for the work of all our Commonwealth public servants. We are most fortunate with the quality and calibre of the Commonwealth Public Service. I also want to mention Peter Greste, who is most unjustly spending Christmas in his Cairo prison cell.
Australians began this year celebrating an Ashes whitewash; we approach its end mourning the passing of Phillip Hughes. And in between there was joy and sadness. In an unknown wheat field in Ukraine and somewhere in the remote ocean depths two Malaysian airliners met a tragic end, and our world grieved for all those on board. For their families it was more than a significant international event; it was a life-changing tragedy, and our thoughts are with them now and always.
In Iraq and Syria sectarian hatred and evil threatens the vulnerable, and both sides of this chamber work together in a cooperative spirit because the safety of our people and the security of our nation unites us all. Corporal Cameron Baird from 2 Commando Regiment became the 100th Australian to be awarded the VC. Sadly, like so many of his brave predecessors, it was posthumous. We welcomed a new Governor-General, and we thanked Her Excellency Quentin Bryce and Michael Bryce for their sterling service to our country. You do not need to be their son-in-law to recognise their greatness!
Our athletes did us proud in Sochi, Glasgow and Brazil. Richard Flanagan became just the third Australian to win the Man Booker Prize for his harrowing tale, The Narrow Road to the Deep North. The Hawks went back to back. And, after 43 long years, it was 'glory, glory for South Sydney'.
Hear! Hear!
Well done, Albo, on the redevelopment of Heffron Park. We lost Doc Neeson—an angel who never pretended to be a saint, and the author of one of our unofficial national anthems. A generation of movie lovers mourn the loss of Robin Williams and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and we celebrated no fewer than three Australian Oscar winners. Brisbane shone for the G20, and this parliament hosted a cavalcade of world leaders.
Someone introduced a budget at some stage—but not to worry, we will get a practice run again in a couple of weeks and a re-run in six months!
Madam Speaker, as well you know, managing this House and this parliament depends upon the work of hundreds of intelligent, dedicated people, and none of them are politicians. To the clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms and their office; the Tabling Office; the Parliamentary Library and Hansard, as well as all the attendants in this chamber, I say that this place runs on your patience, your skill and your good will. Is there really a Facebook page for Luch?
This building, our home for 20 weeks of the year, could not operate without the people who come to work here every day—the security guards, plumbers, printers, switchboard operators, gym staff, nurses and the IT support team. To the Australian Federal Police, who look after MPs and senators—and on occasion our families—I thank you for your dedication. I send a special thank you to the officers who keep an eye on the Melbourne CPO.
I want to thank all of the Parliament House cleaners, especially Joy, Maria, Anna and Lucia, and I wish them well in their campaign for a modest 85c-per-hour pay rise. I thank Dom and his most excellent friendly crew at Aussies, who keep the caffeine flowing as the week goes on. In a building sometimes more known for melodrama and squabbling over the lime light—or indeed problems with the skylight!—to all of you who work backstage to make sure the show goes on, we are grateful.
In the same way, I want to thank all the Comcar drivers. I make special mention of my drivers in Melbourne—Steve Smith, Peter Taylor and, formerly, Bill Foster. They are always willing to listen to my new ideas for shortcuts and navigation—who needs a Navman!—or, when my children are on board, the Frozen soundtrack on repeat. Although Steve was on the wrong end of about five dud tips from yours truly for this year's Spring Racing Carnival he has kept his sense of humour.
I also want to acknowledge our friends in the press gallery. We all benefit from your hindsight! But our democracy is most certainly improved by your diligence and tenacity. And let me not forget the photographers!
In 2014 our party and our nation lost three political giants. In mourning the deaths and celebrating the lives of Neville Wran, Gough Whitlam and Wayne Goss, everyone who shares affection for our movement has been reminded of the timeless Labor values that bind us. To every member of our party—Australia's most venerable political movement—I say: thank you for keeping the light on the hill burning bright.
I especially thank our national secretary George Wright, national president Jenny McAllister and their hardworking team for all their help this year. And I promise every member of the ALP that all of us will give our very best to live up to the progressive, reforming, bold legacy of those who have gone before us, to make you proud to be Labor.
To my marvellous deputy leader, the member for Sydney and her family, thank you very much. Tanya, you mean so much to our party, and your support means so much to me. Thank you.
To our leadership team in the other place, Penny Wong and Stephen Conroy, thank you for the wonderful work that you have done in standing up for Labor values in the upper house. To our shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, and the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, I thank you for your good humour, your ready wit and your wisdom. To all my shadow cabinet and caucus colleagues, I pay tribute to your hard work here and in the community. 2014 was the year that Labor stood strong. We stood strong because we stood together. Every day in this job I count myself lucky to be surrounded by people of such talent, people of social conscience, and I wish you all a relaxing break with the people you love.
As we know, behind every good politician is a surprised and relieved staff member. Work in politics at any level is more than a job; it is a vocation. Our staff make tremendous sacrifices on our behalf and we thank them for that. I seem to have been provided with several extra paragraphs of praise for my own staff. Time will not permit me. Unfortunately, I cannot work through all of it and name them individually. I simply offer a heartfelt thank you to everyone from my office and my electorate office for their effort this year, their energy and their enthusiasm. Even at the most difficult and high-pressure moments, my team can always find a reason to laugh—sometimes it is not even at my expense! I am especially grateful for that.
In his final speech in this place, Kim Beazley said that what our families put up with is the hard secret of public life. Like everyone, I am only here because of my family's support, their patience, their guidance and their love. Chloe, Rupert, Georgette and Clementine, I love you and I cannot wait to see you.
Last week, David Cameron remarked that sometimes this is the place where the brickbats fly. Yes, ours is a chamber of robust exchange. It has always been that way and it always should be. Our democracy depends upon disagreement, on the contest of ideas, on each of us speaking on behalf of the people who elected us. But perhaps in 2015 we can all do better; we can all work harder to separate the personal from the political. In that spirit, I want to acknowledge the work of the crossbenchers in the House of Representatives and the Senate—very important work. In that spirit, I want to wish the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the government and their staff a safe and happy holiday.
Earlier this year I lost my mother—a wonderful woman who taught me and my twin brother, Robert, so much. The Prime Minister sent me a very kind message of condolence. In one of those unscripted moments in public life, Prince William was ahead of the Prime Minister and Princess Kate was behind; the Prime Minister was between. My wife was talking to Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge was talking to Madam Speaker, and there was the Prime Minister and I, within handshake range, as we did. I thanked him for his thoughtful words and his message regarding my mother. I said that, every so often, just when I am at the point of complete frustration with the Prime Minister, he does something nice to surprise me. I think the Prime Minister was sufficiently surprised at this comment, but he paused and said, 'Don't worry. I'm sure I'll find a way to frustrate you soon.' Prime Minister, thank you for your generosity. Please send my very best to your remarkable wife, Margie, and your clever and capable daughters. I am sure that, as you savour a shandy or two this summer, pondering your year of achievement, you will miss us, but do not worry; we will be back. We will be here, ready for the political battle in the year ahead, whatever it may bring.
Merry Christmas, everyone, and a happy New Year. I thank the House.
Members, I would just like to add a few words of thanks to all those who make this place run. As I frequently go around the country talking about we do here, I describe this as not a polite debating society and not a classroom but a battlefield. We have given up guns, swords and fists, and we fight with words. It is a fierce and robust place. Indeed, the width of that table there is, I think, two sabre-lengths, which is meant to indicate that we keep our discussion to words.
There are other people who help me in this job that I would like to thank as well: the President of the Senate and his office; Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Second Deputy Speaker and their staff; the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business; the whips on both sides; and members of the Speakers Panel. To our Clerk, David Elder, it has been a pleasure to work with you and Clarissa Surtees as deputy, and also other members of your department. I thank the Secretary of DPS, Carol Mills; the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Phil Bowen; and the Parliamentary Librarian, Diana Herriot, who is at the moment the Acting Secretary of DPS; the House Table Office, which is vital to all that we do; the Serjeant-at-Arms; the chamber attendants; and broadcasting and Hansard staff.
You did ask, Mr Leader of the Opposition, whether or not there was a special Facebook page for Luch. I think that after yesterday there is a new title, and that is the Royal Order of the Bearer of the Bucket. Until we have enough money—please listen, Mr Treasurer—to fix the roof, he will have an ongoing capability. We have the committee office and committee secretaries and their staff, the research services of members, the Library and the Parliamentary Budget Office—all indispensable to the work we do.
There is the security effort that we now have to put in because of the increased concerns that we have, and we welcome the AFP as part of our family. The AFP always had a presence on the outer perimeter, but now they have a presence in the perimeter, within the confines of the building. They work with the PSS and the SAA, but they are taking a very leading role in keeping us, and members of the public who come to visit, safe. Our Comcar drivers were already mentioned, but they are appreciated by us all. I thank the IT service people; DPS; 2020; the International and Parliamentary Relations Office; the gardening, landscape, maintenance and art services; visitor services staff; our parliamentary house guides; the switchboard operators; and Hansard. To my own staff, I would like to give a very special thank you. They work tirelessly, very much behind the scenes, but without them this job just would not roll on. I would like to thank my own family who are always there, as both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said.
I have a couple of stats. We have introduced 212 bills and we have read, for a third time, 188 pieces of legislation. There were 91 committee reports presented to the House. We have met for 682.23 hours. Amendments considered by the House during consideration in detail stage were 171, and amendments from the Senate numbered 177. It has been a busy time.
I would just like to wish everybody a Happy Christmas. I thank the Prime Minister and ministers for the leadership they give the nation. I thank the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for the essential work they do in presenting those ideas that we debate here. I thank also the crossbenchers with whom we have constant contact.
Most of all I think that the people of Australia can be proud of what happens here, even with our argy-bargy. It is a wonderful democracy. It is a magnificent country. May you all have a wonderful Christmas and a splendid New Year.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014 implements a part of the 2014-15 budget measure 'Smaller government—additional reductions in the number of Australian government bodies' by transferring the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman from 1 July 2015. The consolidation of these functions will reduce duplication, improve coordination and increase efficiency in delivering the Ombudsman's services to the community.
It is important to note that there is expected to be no impact upon the services provided to policy holders. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will continue to provide education and service by way of advice to consumers as well as assist in resolving private health insurance complaints. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will also keep its consumer website which will continue to be managed by the PHIO staff transferring to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The transfer of the PHIO to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman will result in direct savings to industry. As the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman operates on a cost recovered basis, all savings made will be directly reflected in reduced levies payable by the private health insurance industry.
As part of the transfer of functions, the opportunity has been taken to streamline some of the investigative procedures of the PHIO with those of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This deregulation of the PHIO will lessen the administrative burden placed upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman by aligning complaints-handling and investigation processes between the agencies. These administrative efficiencies are expected to enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of complaints handling, and ensure that consumer complaints are resolved expediently and satisfactorily, helping patients get the best value from their insurance.
Further, under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, the only statutory process available to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to gather information was to make a formal written request for information or records to the subject of a complaint. However, consistent with information-gathering powers in the Ombudsman Act 1976, the PHIO will now be able to either request information and documents from a person, or formally require the production of information or records by written notice. This will allow for a more graduated information-gathering approach, which will in turn provide for increased consumer protection and an expedited complaints-resolution process.
Finally, this bill will make a minor amendment to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to remove references to the 'base premium' which were intended to be removed by the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Act 2014 passed by the parliament earlier this year. Unfortunately, due to an unintended delay in the granting of royal assent these references were not removed.
The removal of remaining references to the concept of a base premium will not affect how the current premiums reduction scheme is applied for insurers and relevant policy holders and the simplified calculation of the Australian government rebate on private health insurance will remain in place.
This government has long acknowledged the important role that private health insurance plays throughout the Australian healthcare system, and is committed to supporting private health insurance now and into the future.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill to amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to cease the operation of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (or CAMAC) and its legal committee.
The cessation of CAMAC will also result in the formal termination of CAMAC's legal committee which was formally established in September 1991.
However, the business environment has changed from 1989 when the agency was first established as the Corporations and Securities Advisory Committee.
The professionalism and capacity of industry representative groups is now much stronger, and business is quite capable of putting its views to government without the need for an additional layer of taxpayer funded bureaucracy.
This bill fulfils a commitment made by the government in the 2014-15 budget to abolish CAMAC and its legal committee as part of the effort to achieve a smaller and more rational government footprint.
CAMAC and its legal committee are two of the 36 government bodies the Abbott government has committed to abolishing as part of our smaller government reforms.
The Abbott government is acting early to deliver a smaller and more rational government, and contribute to fiscal repair and to the sustainability of government operations.
Ceasing the operation of small bodies and committees generates savings beyond merely the saving of the annual appropriation.
The ongoing operation of small agencies absorbs resources across the broader Commonwealth Public Service, including through the oversight costs incurred by responsible departments, central agencies and integrity agencies.
This bill terminates the operation of CAMAC by repealing part 9 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act and making a number of consequential amendments to that act.
The cessation of CAMAC will take effect from the 28th day after the bill receives royal assent.
Part 2 of schedule 1 of this bill provides for the transitional and saving arrangements necessary to facilitate the cessation of CAMAC.
The transitional and saving provisions provide for things such as:
I am confident industry will continue to be vocal in expressing its views to government on the operation of the corporations laws.
The Treasury will act as an adviser and coordinator of advice, given its role as a policy agency. Treasury will continue to advise the government in relation to corporate law, financial markets and financial services following the cessation of CAMAC. That advice will continue to be informed by regular engagement with relevant experts and with industry.
In addition, ASIC will continue to be empowered under its enabling legislation to make recommendations to the government about any matter connected with:
Finally, the government retains the ability to refer matters regarding the corporate regulatory framework to other government research and advisory bodies such as the Productivity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.
With this bill the government is fulfilling its commitment to abolish CAMAC and its legal committee as part of the effort to achieve a smaller and more rational government footprint.
The full details of these measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I thank CAMAC's past and current members, as well as its staff.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax system. The amendments are part of the government's Economic Action Strategy, which is providing the right conditions to drive growth and create jobs by creating the right incentives for a more dynamic and competitive Australian economy.
We are restoring fiscal sustainability and confidence in our public finances.
We are promoting business confidence by creating the right environment to innovate, invest and thrive.
We are making sure that the frameworks and structures that underpin the Australian economy—the fundamentals—are right.
By doing this we will unleash our economic potential and build a strong and prosperous Australia.
These amendments encourage business to get on with business.
They improve the efficiency of government.
And they reduce uncertainty for both business and individuals in taxation and regulation.
Schedule 1 of this bill makes the superannuation tax laws fairer. Currently, individuals are taxed on any superannuation contributions in excess of their cap at the top marginal tax rate. This is punitive, especially as excess non-concessional contributions are made out of aftertax income, generally inadvertently and incurred by most individuals below the top marginal tax rate.
This bill will allow individuals the option of being taxed on the deemed earnings associated with their excess superannuation non-concessional contribution at their marginal tax rate.
This will ensure the treatment of excess concessional and non-concessional contributions is broadly consistent.
Prior to the last election, the government made a commitment to develop appropriate mechanisms to address all inadvertent breaches of the superannuation contribution caps where the error would result in a disproportionate penalty.
This measure delivers on that commitment.
It also addresses the recommendations of the Inspector-General of Taxation in his report of March 2014, Review into the Australian Taxation Office's compliance approach to individual taxpayerssuperannuation excess contributions tax.
Schedule 2 of the bill transfers the Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigative and complaints handling functions relating to tax law matters to the Inspector-General of Taxation.
The Inspector-General of Taxation is an independent statutory office that reviews systemic tax administration issues and reports to government with recommendations for improving tax administration for the benefit of all taxpayers.
The changes were announced in the 2014-15 budget and will provide taxpayers with a single, specialised, scrutiny agency for handling both individual tax complaints and systemic tax reviews. The transfer will enable more efficient use of tax expertise and provide for an improved customer focus.
The amendments have also provided the opportunity to bring the inspector-general's systemic review powers into line with those of the Ombudsman. The inspector-general's powers will now mirror those of the Ombudsman.
Schedule 3 of the bill makes minor amendments to the taxation laws to ensure the proper functioning of the capital gains tax provisions in relation to life insurance policies.
The government is addressing the backlog of 92 tax and superannuation measures that had not been legislated by previous governments to reduce uncertainty for businesses and consumers.
By introducing this bill, the government is crossing another measure off that list.
The intention of this amendment is for compensation or damages received by a trustee and beneficiary, for example for a workplace injury, not to be subject to capital gains tax.
Further, trustees who hold life insurance policies, and superannuation fund trustees who hold life, injury and illness insurance policies for members and receive compensation or damages, from such policies, should not be subject to capital gains tax.
These changes will create a capital gains tax exemption for compensation or damages received by certain trustees for a wrong, injury or illness suffered by a beneficiary who subsequently receives a distribution attributable to that compensation or damages.
These amendments codify the ATO's existing administrative practice, giving taxpayers, business and superannuation funds certainty in how the law applies to these situations.
Schedule 4 provides greater certainty for superannuation fund mergers by clarifying that a tax integrity rule will not be triggered when superannuation benefits are rolled over from one superannuation fund to another as a result of a merger between those funds.
The measure will benefit superannuation funds intending to merge to achieve efficiencies and comply with regulatory requirements, and their individual members whose retirement savings will benefit as a result.
This measure will apply from 1 July 2015.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to remove doubt about protected information sharing by the ATO with law enforcement agencies.
These amendments clarify the ATO's ability to share information with Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies seeking proceeds of crime orders.
The amendments also extend disclosure of protected information to include disclosure that assists in supporting or enforcing proceeds of crime orders.
Schedule 6 of this bill amends the taxation laws to provide for an Exploration Development Incentive.
This delivers on the government's 2013 election commitment.
The incentive encourages investment in small exploration companies undertaking greenfields exploration in Australia.
The resources sector remains an important source of growth in the Australian economy. In 2013-14 about 10 per cent of growth in GDP was driven by the mining industry. Similarly, employment in the mining industry has grown by 10 per cent on average over the past 10 years.
Not only is the sector important for Australia's economy overall, but a vibrant resources sector creates jobs and supports local businesses in regional communities across Australia.
The resources sector is dependent on the continuing discovery of quality resources, and it is small mineral exploration companies that undertake most of the exploration in greenfields areas.
However, Australia's junior explorers have been finding it increasingly difficult in recent years to raise the capital they need to continue to explore.
This was not helped by the actions of the previous Labor government, which burdened the resources sector with new taxes and extra regulation. As a result, exploration for new mineral discoveries has reached a 10 year low.
The Exploration Development Incentive helps restore confidence in the junior exploration sector and allows junior exploration companies to get on with the job of finding tomorrow's mines.
The incentive provides Australian resident shareholders of junior explorers with a refundable tax offset for the exploration undertaken by these companies where the company gives up a portion of its losses.
This will assist junior explorers in raising capital from private sector investors.
The government conducted public consultation on the policy design of the Exploration Development Incentive from March to April and public consultation on draft legislation and explanatory materials in October.
The cost of the incentive is capped at $100 million over three years.
Schedule 7 of this bill makes a number of amendments across the tax law to provide certainty for taxpayers. These amendments make sure the law operates as intended, by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies, and addressing unintended outcomes.
The amendments demonstrate the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law. By clarifying the law, addressing unintended outcomes and repealing unnecessary provisions, these amendments further the government's deregulation agenda.
A number of the amendments relate to issues lodged on the Tax Issues Entry System, a platform for members of the community to raise matters regarding the care and maintenance of the Australian government's tax and superannuation systems.
Among other things, these amendments will achieve the intended policy outcome for the self-actuating system for indirect taxes.
They remove redundant provisions concerning the calculation of taxpayers' net amounts of GST for a period.
They clarify that an entitlement to an input tax credit ceases when the Commissioner of Taxation is no longer able to amend relevant GST assessments.
And they harmonise the time limits for objections for private indirect tax rulings and those for objecting to other kinds of tax rulings.
The schedule also makes amendments to allow corporate limited partnerships to effectively return capital to partners, without anomalous tax outcomes.
This bill makes sure the amendments do not operate to determine whether a payment made by a corporate limited partnership is taken to be a dividend by the income tax law.
Further amendments will assure taxpayers they will not be inappropriately denied automatic rollover relief in balancing adjustments for certain depreciating assets.
The schedule also updates section references and cross-references in the tax law, and repeals redundant provisions.
Full details of all the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Excess Exploration Credit Tax Bill 2014 forms part of a package of legislation along with schedule 6 to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 7) Bill 2014 to introduce an Exploration Development Incentive.
This bill imposes the excess exploration credit tax, which provides a mechanism to recover any costs to the Commonwealth that may arise where an exploration company distributes more exploration credits than they are entitled to under the Exploration Development Incentive.
This mechanism will ensure the fairness and integrity of the Exploration Development Incentive.
Further details of the bill and the Exploration Development Incentive more generally are set out in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Planning, procurement and funding for Australia's future infrastructure—report on the inquiry into infrastructure planning and procurement, together with the minutes of proceedings, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, I have the pleasure of presenting the committee's report on the inquiry into infrastructure planning and procurement.
The delivery of infrastructure to support a growing and demographically diverse population will drive productivity and improve living standards for all Australians. In assuring all stakeholders—the community, governments and business—that the nation's future infrastructure needs can be met, it is incumbent upon all governments to ensure appropriate planning and procurement processes are developed and instituted. These should be complemented by value for money funding and finance mechanisms.
The committee was tasked with reviewing the Australian government's response, in an infrastructure sense, to a variety of factors, including demographic change, increasing fuel costs and housing affordability. The committee has heard some compelling evidence to suggest changes in the way the government addresses infrastructure planning and funding.
The inquiry into planning and procurement received many submissions from a wide range of interested parties: from government departments to peak industry bodies and advocacy groups. Many of these appeared as witnesses at the 12 public hearings overseen by the committee, and on behalf of the committee I wish to thank them for their time and expertise.
The committee's report examined the planning of infrastructure, recommending that improved coordination and harmonisation of Commonwealth, state and territory-based processes be undertaken. The way our Federation is framed can lead to duplication of services and this leads to duplication of process, which is costly in both time and money.
The committee is mindful of the constitutional arrangements in our country, but also believes greater effort in reducing duplication is needed. The committee emphasised the importance of identifying a long term pipeline of infrastructure projects to provide certainty for stakeholders regarding future planning. In developing this pipeline, the committee notes a recently announced expansion of Infrastructure Australia's functions. The committee further recommended that, where required, relevant land corridors be identified and preserved to meet future infrastructure needs.
There are significant opportunities to encourage investment in infrastructure through various models. However, numerous submissions indicated there is limited technical capacity within Commonwealth departments, causing substantial increases in cost and risk to both taxpayers and investors.
The committee recommended that the Australian government develop innovative financing and funding models for the development of public infrastructure, providing flexibility and the ability to respond to associated costs and inherent risks. In particular, closer consideration should be given to options, including forward tax incentives, user charging, inverted bidding, infrastructure bonds and capital recycling.
The committee also made recommendations for procurement reform. It called upon the Australian government to consider innovative procurement practices, including promoting the use of Building Information Modelling, BIM, and co-funding the design or purchase of intellectual property rights, particularly where they form part of an innovative infrastructure tender proposal. The recommendation also called for the streamlining and centralising of elements of the tender process and the debundling of project elements to allow greater competition between industry participants.
The committee also made some recommendations aimed at Infrastructure Australia's involvement in the infrastructure procurement process, including improving their technical capability and the appointment of a chief engineer. Having the technical capacity to determine the most appropriate infrastructure design, construction and procurement model on a case-by-case basis was considered critical when dealing with large projects. It was recommended that a methodology be developed and applied to evaluate the wider economic benefits of infrastructure projects receiving Commonwealth funding of over $100 million. It was further recommended that the role of Infrastructure Australia as a specialist procurement agency be enhanced, allowing the provision of policy advice and support to government agencies undertaking infrastructure procurement.
The committee was mindful of the recently released Productivity Commission report entitled Public Infrastructure and was careful not to duplicate the commission's findings but rather identify ways those findings could be expanded upon or enhanced. An outline of the commission's findings appears on pages 2 and 3 of this report, and I recommend that they be read in conjunction with this report.
Finally, I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who made contributions to the inquiry both through submissions and through appearances at public hearings. The committee has made 10 recommendations we feel will progress the planning and procurement crucial for the infrastructure of Australia. As chairman, I wish to acknowledge members of the committee who brought their varied experience to bear during an inquiry that covered a number of complex matters. It is clear that there is a need for significant structural change to current processes in the planning, procurement and funding of infrastructure in Australia, and it is hoped that the recommendations of this committee contribute to further reform in this area.
On behalf of the committee I also wish to thank the committee secretariat for their hard work in supporting the committee during this Inquiry.
On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I wish to add to the remarks of the chair, Ms Prentice, and in doing so acknowledge Ms Prentice for her great work in chairing this committee. The Labor members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications do agree with most of the recommendations contained in the report. However, we have sought to add two recommendations in a further report of the committee. Throughout the course of the inquiry, having heard from many of the stakeholders and experts, we did develop a firm appreciation of the progress that has been made and some of the challenges in delivering infrastructure in Australia. The challenge of delivering productivity enhancing infrastructure in Australia in an efficient manner is really subject to the foibles of Federation. Generally, having three levels of government responsible for planning, designing, financing and construction of infrastructure presents significant challenges. Many of the witnesses submitted their frustration at having to deal with the three levels of government, particularly around planning in respect of building infrastructure.
The report makes recommendations that largely build upon the good work of Labor when we were in government, through the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, and agreement was reached on most of the recommendations and the bulk of the report. However, Labor members thought that certain elements needed strengthening and that recommendations around a couple of issues needed to be more robust.
The main points in respect of Labor's dissenting report are that the government should continue to use its leadership position via COAG to drive better practices around infrastructure project identification, planning and selection to align particularly with recommendations 7.3 and 7.1 of the Productivity Commission's public infrastructure inquiry.
Further, Labor members of the committee submit that the government must legislate to establish an authority that transcends the electoral cycle to work with the states, territories and local governments and particularly rail experts to preserve a corridor for east coast high-speed rail but, more generally, for other national road and rail projects.
This was a point that was made by many witnesses to the inquiry, including the member for Bennelong and the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Tim Fischer, who, we all know, is a passionate advocate for rail and the greater use of rail in Australia and, indeed, high-speed rail. In his submission to the inquiry he had this to say:
Capital City HSR “corridor close out” continues to occur, notably with some near disgraceful planning approvals around outer Melbourne, especially the dogs muddle unfolding at Donnybrook. Significantly international interest remains high re HSR possibilities including investment in Australian HSR by overseas interests but the clock is ticking. Now is the time for some bold decisions, now or virtually never.
It is wonderful to see that the former Deputy Prime Minister has not lost his penchant for colourful language and, indeed, his passion for high-speed rail. I thought the remarks in his submission to the committee were quite notable. Former Prime Minister Tim Fischer talked about getting on with the job of actually preserving a corridor for high-speed rail and we recommend that the government take up his suggestions. When you talk about visionary infrastructure projects, you can see that this is one that will bring tangible benefits in terms of productivity enhancement to the east coast of Australia. It is a long-term project but we need to get on with the job of preserving the corridor now. The recommendation that Labor members make in this report is for the government to support the establishment of a Commonwealth authority to work with the states and experts to do that.
We also say that government education and training policy needs to anticipate increased demand for local infrastructure planning, procurement and delivery skills and should have a skills supply policy that anticipates demand.
Governments should note considerable and detailed Productivity Commission criticism of the structure of the Asset Recycling Initiative and its potential to incentivise privatisations of monopoly assets without adequate consumer and community protections. So Labor members have made a recommendation in respect of asset recycling. It relates to what the Productivity Commission had to say about the potential foibles of asset recycling.
Further, we say that the government should fund projects on a more neutral basis to avoid distortions and inefficient investment decisions. That includes funding urban passenger rail projects when identified as the best solution to congestion problems. Just funding road projects sends a signal to cash-strapped states that roads are preferred and are cheaper. That has been noted by Infrastructure Australia as distortionary and something that Labor members support.
Finally, Labor members submitted that the government should ensure that all projects with a capital value of over $100 million have a cost-benefit analysis, assessed by Infrastructure Australia using a standard method capable of comparison across projects, and that the evaluation should inform funding decisions and therefore should occur prior to any proposed allocation of funds.
I thank other committee members and, in particular, I pay tribute to the staff of the secretariat and thank them for their wonderful work.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
As required by resolutions of the House I present copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 16 July 2014 to 2 December 2014.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. Labor oppose this bill. However, we have sought to refer the bill to a Senate committee to examine whether the government's claims about its merits stand up to scrutiny. At this stage, we believe that the bill is not ideally constructed. It is ambiguous, imposes red tape on small businesses, may increase costs and create uncertainty. We do believe, however, that finding ways to increase productivity is of significant importance and so we will seek the view of stakeholders, through the committee, on the proposed changes. As the Chief Executive of the Australian Mines and Metals Association Steven Knott claims, Australian businesses are looking for reform 'to help sustain our nation's economic growth, living standards and employment'. Labor wants to ensure that any changes to the current system will increase productivity, growth and jobs. That is why we have taken the responsible decision to refer the bill to a Senate committee.
It is worth noting that this bill was introduced on Thursday and here we are, only one week later, debating the merits of a bill which could have very significant impacts on how employers, unions and employees conduct themselves during bargaining and how the Fair Work Commission operates. Given the Abbott government flagged the idea of these changes in their policy document, why has it taken so long? Why is the government now seeking to rush this through parliament?
The construction of the bill is clearly inconsistent with the government's election policy document. Labor is concerned that this will lead to adverse consequences—and who could blame us? Australians have been misled by the government with a proposed GP tax, fuel tax, cuts to the ABC and SBS, cuts to the indexation of the pension, cuts to health and cuts to higher education—the list goes on and on. And we do not want this bill adding to that already long list.
In short, Labor cannot support this bill as it currently stands because it may be ambiguous and may result in no change other than to create additional red tape, increase costs and generate uncertainty for employers, unions and employees; and, at worst, it is an assault on employees' democratic right to bargain effectively at the workplace. Labor contends that the bill is poorly constructed and is potentially bad policy. I will consider the bill sequentially and deal with the government's proposed 'productivity discussions' and then move to the protected industrial action proposals in the bill.
In addressing the government's proposal relating to productivity discussions as part of enterprise agreements we arrive at their first broken promise. Labor is concerned the government has gone further than their election policy and put the power directly into employers' hands. The coalition's policy document states:
Before an enterprise agreement is approved, the Fair Work Commission will have to be satisfied that the parties have at least discussed productivity as part of their negotiation process. The key is to make sure—
and this perhaps the most important part—
that workers and managers have at least considered how to improve productivity to help their workplace work effectively.
If the government was serious about addressing productivity in the case of both workers and managers they could have considered amendments to the good faith bargaining rules and made clear what was expected during that process. Instead they have opted for this new requirement which may not benefit the process of bargaining for and, eventually, completing an enterprise agreement. Due to the clumsy drafting of the provision two equally plausible situations arise. One scenario is the government's proposal does nothing but add red tape, increase costs and create industry uncertainty. Indeed, respected industrial relations academic Professor Andrew Stewart, from the University of Adelaide, has said the government's requirement for productivity discussions is 'completely token' and 'more red tape', which would not create much change.
Geoffrey Giudice, the highly regarded former President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its successor Fair Work Australia, has said that requiring parties to formally take productivity into account in enterprise bargaining would create definitional and quantitative issues. On the implications, including productivity, Giudice has said:
In the case of parties who were already having difficulty reaching agreement, any additional requirement would not be helpful. Where parties are in agreement, there would be a temptation to find spurious productivity improvements where none existed in order to satisfy the statutory requirements.
Giudice goes on to say:
Building in further process would be unlikely to yield a net benefit.
It is for these reasons that Labor believes that further investigation needs to be done by a Senate committee to look at the implications of this bill.
The government claims it has a deregulation and red tape reduction agenda. Well, here is a perfect and simple example that the government may be doing exactly the opposite—in this case, inflicting unnecessary requirements on business. In practice the outcome of this bill, if it is passed, may only create a box-ticking exercise where the bargaining parties just place a tick to say they have discussed productivity—and that would be it. However, like everything with this government, we must dig a little deeper because we know the government's intention is not actually to deal with productivity. This Liberal Party's agenda has been to wage a continuing crusade against working people by imposing the requirements on unions while providing options for employers to avoid the requirements.
It is against this backdrop that we must consider an ulterior scenario that might arise from the successful passage of this bill. Just as there is the possibility that this provision is ineffective there is also a very real and equally conceivable risk that the construction of this provision could operate as a veto power for employers. The new requirement states that the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that improvements to productivity were discussed 'during' bargaining for the agreement. However, the relevant section of the Fair Work Act 2009 refers to the requirements that must be met before the Fair Work Commission can approve an enterprise agreement. Therefore, it is not beyond the bounds of reason that a situation might arise where an employer says, 'I don't want to talk about productivity until we've discussed the cutting of wages, holidays or other conditions.' Does that mean that, if this bill is enacted, an agreement can never be completed if employees refuse to accept those adverse changes first? This looks like it may tip the balance of bargaining further in favour of employers. So already we are seeing the potential effect that this bill could have—supporting Labor's sensible position that this bill be referred to a committee for further examination.
Labor knows how important productivity is. That is why, when we were in government, we ensured it was included in the objects of the act. ABS data shows that labour productivity has increased over the last 12 quarters. Labor's workplace relations policies are working to deliver productive and sustainable outcomes for Australian employers and their workforce. What we know is that productivity was three times higher under Labor's Fair Work Act than during the draconian Work Choices regime. This productivity increase took place after the repealing of WorkChoices and, most remarkably, while we were enduring the greatest global economic shock since the Great Depression.
And just as we know how important productivity is, we know how insincere the government's sloganeering about productivity is. If the government were genuinely serious about productivity they would not be cutting trade training centres, they would not be gutting $2 billion from training and skills, they would not be seeking to open up the temporary migration streams while thousands of Australian workers are unemployed and they would not be removing protections for Australian workers. Instead, the government would be building infrastructure properly, including rolling out Labor's NBN and investing in rail. They would be training our young people in the skills our economy needs for the future. They would be investing in entrepreneurship and innovation and assisting small business.
But we see none of that from this government. No thinly veiled attempt to canvass productivity as part of the approval requirements of enterprise bargaining can hide the fact that the Prime Minister is failing on jobs, training, infrastructure and ultimately productivity. A further concern that Labor has with this bill is the definition—more appropriately, the lack thereof—of productivity. The bill simply does not define productivity, so there is a multitude of ways that it might be interpreted. We know that economists have many different definitions of what productivity is. Indeed, some employers would have a different view of productivity to that of their employees. For example, it can be rightly argued that including an additional week's training—for, say, technical employees who are party to an agreement—is a measure that will boost productivity, increasing skills and leading to productivity outcomes. However, it could also be argued—perhaps with less veracity and probably by those members opposite—that it is not a productivity-boosting measure at all but, rather, an unproductive measure, because the employee would be incapable of working for that week.
So, again, on the definition of productivity and the perspectives that parties bring to that definition you can see can see how it can create division, uncertainty and debate and may not lead to the certainty required for negotiating agreements. The government's explanatory memorandum uses examples of productivity improvements such as 'elimination of restrictive or inefficient work practices' and initiatives to provide employers with 'greater responsibilities or additional skills directly translating to improved outcomes'. What on earth does this mean? I guarantee that the government does not know—and that might very well be deliberate. We may conclude, as Professor Stewart has said, that the government is deliberately trying to make it difficult and ambiguous and induce doubt among employees seeking to take protected industrial action. And I would like to return to that point a little later. But the problem is that the construction of the examples is so inept that it will potentially lead to employers needing to take legal advice in relation to protected action matters as well.
I will now address the concerns Labor has around the changes to protected action. We contend that the Abbott government's proposals reflect a deep misunderstanding of bargaining and negotiation. We are concerned that the proposed amendments to the sections of the Fair Work Act that govern protected industrial action may have been introduced to appease those who have lobbied the government from a particular sector of the economy—namely, big business. Our concern is that the government's ideological war against unions continues in this bill. There are two parts to the government's proposed amendments to protected industrial action ballots. The determination about what constitutes genuinely trying to reach an agreement has been a matter for the Fair Work Commission based on all the circumstances since the institution of protected industrial action was created under Paul Keating. Indeed, there was no attempt to change that definition in the Howard years. In this bill the government is proposing to essentially codify elements of a Fair Work decision they deem favourable. The proposal is that the test for whether an applicant—an employee organisation—for a protected action ballot has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement would include a non-exhaustive list of matters, which are:
(a) the steps taken by each applicant to try and reach agreement;
(b) the extent to which each applicant has communicated the claims;
(c) whether the applicant has provided a considered response to the proposals made by the employer;
(d) the extent to which bargaining for the agreement has progressed.
In pursuing this amendment, again, two scenarios arise. First, the government's insistence to codify the matters is completely unnecessary given that commissioners currently are entirely free to have regard to all relevant circumstances and do not disregard the matters to which I have just referred. Second, the government is introducing the additional requirements because they are applicable only to those making an application for protection action—namely, employees' organisations: unions. There are no corresponding additional elements placed on employers.
If this were the case, it would be yet again an election breach. Given the government's propensity to break its election commitments, this is the more likely scenario. To be clear, the election policy of the government stipulated:
Workers and business must be genuine in their attempts to bargain so that realistic improvements in employment conditions can occur for everyone.
Yet, as the ACTU correctly states, by amending section 443 in the way in which it has, the government has imposed a different and higher standard on unions to take protected industrial action over and above that to which employers are subject in cases of employer lockouts. There is another difficulty that presents itself in this scenario. If the 'extent to which bargaining for the agreement has progressed' is included as a compulsory consideration, this again may encourage employers to frustrate the process of bargaining. What will happen if employers stall bargaining? Again, we think that is best examined further by a Senate committee. Also, the government's explanatory memorandum refers, at paragraph 17, to an applicant for a protected action ballot having to take 'genuine and reasonable steps to engage with an employer'. Perhaps we could think about this in another way: how many times is it reasonable for an applicant to go back to an intransigent employer?
The other component of the government's proposed changes to protected action is the new provision that means that the Fair Work Commission must not make a protected action ballot order if it is satisfied that the applicant's claim or claims:
(a) are manifestly excessive, having regard to the conditions at the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates; or
(b) would have a significant adverse impact on productivity at the workplace.
The bill still leaves much discretion to the Fair Work Commission, but this may add additional uncertainty. On reading the text of the bill, it appears that the Fair Work Commission is not required to consider matters going to claims that are 'manifestly excessive' or had an 'adverse impact on productivity' unless the parties made a case for it.
What we see also is a provision relating to the claims that 'would have a significant adverse impact on productivity' which is, we think, badly designed. On one hand, the provision means absolutely nothing because, of course, a claim cannot possibly lead to productivity. A claim is just that: a claim. Claims can only have an impact if they are granted. Only the other, different, interpretation might rule out the possibility of ever taking industrial action.
Again, the ACTU has raised the point that this amendment is best seen as a merits test which will be applied to the claims made in bargaining both on an individual basis and an all-in basis. The former could effectively defeat the latter. The ACTU quite rightly contends that, if the commission is satisfied that a claim of the applicant is manifestly excessive, the ballot application will fail—notwithstanding the fact that every claim or concession made moderates the impact of the individual claim being considered. This is most definitely a question that warrants further investigation by the Senate committee.
Consider this example posed by Professor Stewart. If a commissioner need only consider a single element of a claim, without having regard to other elements of the claim, any single element of a claim that seeks to impose an additional cost or create an additional burden on the employer may have an adverse impact on productivity. Therefore, even if a commissioner is satisfied an individual claim, if granted, would have a significant negative impact on productivity, there is absolutely no way the commissioner could possibly know what else might be agreed to offset that. What this means is a commissioner might possibly never be satisfied.
Professor Stewart goes on to say it is therefore possible that if the test is applied as strictly and rigorously as it is proposed, this could remove the capacity to take industrial action entirely. That may not be the intention of the government—then again, it may well be—but that may well be the consequence, unintended or otherwise, of this bill if enacted. With the construction of this bill, Labor believes a commissioner may take the purpose of the amendment as meaning unions should only be able advance claims that do not significantly impact on productivity. This would be a surprising step, which, we argue, could destroy enterprise bargaining as we know it. The whole bargaining process is about bringing two parties together where they may not start in similar positions, particularly on matters such as wages, conditions, flexibility and, of course, productivity.
Another concern with this proposal is the determination of what is 'manifestly excessive'. The government's explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 21, states:
The phrase 'manifestly excessive' is intended to be directed at claims that are evidently or obviously out of range or above and beyond what is necessary, reasonable, proper or capable of being met by the employer, when compared to the conditions at the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates.
There is a risk that a claim with an element of ambit in it, say above CPI, may mean that a protected industrial order cannot be granted. This is yet another reason why the bill must be referred to the committee for investigation.
The final practical problem, which is supported in the government's explanatory memorandum, is that, if one union has one 'excessive' claim in their log, it would prevent all unions' applications from proceeding—that is, if they were jointly applying for protected action pursuant to the act. Yet again, this is a case of punish one, punish all. It very much looks like the government is seeking to stymie the rights of employees to effectively bargain by, in certain circumstances, denying protected industrial action. Professor Stewart goes on to say, 'It could happen in all circumstances, theoretically.' Remember, this is about denying the rights not just of construction workers, the workforce that the government likes to attack every day, but also of nurses, paramedics, teachers, administrative workers and workers throughout the land. This is, on the construction of the bill, potentially very unreasonable and indeed could be very damaging to the way in which enterprise bargaining has operated in this country.
A final matter that must be touched upon is how this bill will intersect with the government's plans to appoint an appellate jurisdiction to overturn decisions of the Fair Work Commission. The Liberal Party's election policy document states they will give 'active consideration to the creation of an independent appeal jurisdiction' of the Fair Work Commission. We know this plan is the government attempting to undermine the independence of the commissioners, giving the final say on matters to the government's hand-picked appointees. By creating and appointing its own appeals body with the power to overturn full bench decisions of the Fair Work Commission, the government would turn the independent umpire into a partisan body, which would make ultimate decisions on the matters I have addressed, including productivity and protected action. When you have a bill such as this, which is so ambiguous and leaves much to be interpreted by commissioners, this is a serious concern, and it could mean that partisan government appointees are effectively making judgements on the pay and conditions of average Australians.
As I have said, there is much to be concerned with in the provisions of this bill. It is for that reason that we seek to have the matter reviewed. We believe that it would appear to be badly constructed. It may well have unintended consequences. Some would argue that the consequences are indeed intended. We would say that the bill, being ambiguous as it is, seems to misunderstand key elements of our workplace relations system. And, for that reason, Labor quite responsibly refers the bill to a Senate committee to hear the views of stakeholders and potentially affected parties.
This bill is very essential to allow us to deliver what we said we would do in the last election. This bill encompasses amendments that go to the heart of fairness and productivity.
Before we go any further I would just like to bring to the House's attention what I, and most people, see as fairness. Fairness implies reasonableness: reasonable activity; being reasonable. It implies taking into account both sides of the argument—or the many sides to an argument—or the objectives and aims and the situation that the parties to negotiation find themselves in. It does not imply fairness to one party to the negotiations; it implies equal footings, equal validity and consideration of both sides of the argument.
In the Australian situation, one can almost justify anything by appealing to this higher Australian authority of something being fair or not, and our opponents on the other side have worked this principle of Australian society to the nth degree. The aim of this exercise is to put fairness back into the Fair Work Act because, to the humble observer, let alone large corporations or small businesses that are trying to get a new industrial arrangement in place, all the fairness seems to be on the side of the applicant. You have only got to see opposition to our budget. There is no economic angle in their arguments. There is just all this appeal to something being unfair. Fairness is a bit like beauty. Beauty, the old saying goes, is in the eye of the beholder. Fairness is also in the eye of the beholder, and what we have in the Fair Work Act is a one-sided situation where applicants for an agreement can come in, strike first and argue later. This amendment addresses that situation.
It is also addressing the issue of productivity, which is not enshrined in this amendment, but it is just putting it on the table to make sure it is considered by the commission and by the people in good-faith bargaining. Everyone in the industrial space wants the business to succeed. Everyone who is employed wants to have a job. But, when applications cross over to manifestly unreasonable or excessive, you have to have the ability in our negotiation system to make sure the unreasonableness or the economic reality of a situation come to bear. So productivity is at the essence of this bill.
In Australia, we are pricing ourselves out of so many of our traditional markets. We have, for many years, being very efficient miners. We have been very efficient farmers and producers of wonderful produce. But, if we have inefficient industrial relations without productivity gains, all our competitive advantage will go. You only have to look at the JJ Richards case from three or four years ago or the case in the north-west with the tugboat negotiations, where there were unbelievably generous ambit claims put in. That is what this regulatory change to the act is aiming to address. It compels the Fair Work Commission to consider productivity changes. It also addresses the process by which protected industrial action can be taken. 'Protected industrial action' means whoever goes on strike is not liable, in a civil sense, for any of the consequences of the strike.
These are two essential problems for the nation: the return of our productivity growth, which was the marker of income growth and national prosperity through the late eighties and nineties into the early 2000's. That is why our society was in a really sweet spot where people's household incomes were growing and there was growth in businesses which employ more Australians. But we seem to have lost that. We have been on vacation regarding productivity growth. If we do not become productive, things become more expensive. Our products that we try to sell are less competitive. So our trade suffers. To make the most of our free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, we have to lift our productivity. The trade deals themselves will not get us the wealth and prosperity that we have within our grasp. It will happen if we become more productive.
One only has to look at the LNG revolution. There is a whole new technology being delivered in these floating LNG platforms because it was more efficient and more productive for the LNG processors to do it out at sea. We would much rather it happened on shore using Australian workers, but efficiency and productivity was woeful. So they have invented this whole new technology that bypasses a lot of Australian workers, and it is a pity. We do not want that to go on continuously. We want our workplace to be productive and effective.
Some of the amendments, in particular, insert new sections which put effect to those principles. Industrial action still can be taken with these amendments, but there has to be a genuine discussion about the productivity gains. Some of these productivity gains were mentioned by the previous speaker with some shock, horror and surprise. But getting rid of restrictive and inefficient work practices is to be commended. I think it is an excellent idea. Employees having more responsibilities, but then becoming more productive is another great principle. Improving design efficiency and effectiveness in the workplace is another great principle. But the previous speaker looked on in horror and surprise, thinking that this might be, essentially, a bad thing.
As I mentioned, it does not force productivity into the workplace. It is very gentle. It is just saying that you have got to discuss it. It has got to be part of the negotiation process, and before you have protected strike action you have to have a protected ballot to see if the workers do actually want to undertake strike action. These are hardly revolutionary ideas. But, if you do get manifestly excessive claims like a 38 per cent wage rise without any productivity gains, no business can survive that. These regulatory changes will introduce common sense. We said before the election that we would work with the Fair Work Commission—we are working with the Fair Work Commission and we are putting sensible regulatory changes in place, and good outcomes should result.
Subsection 443(1) provides that the Fair Work Commission must make a protected action ballot order if it is satisfied that an application for a protected action ballot order has been made and that each applicant has been, and most importantly is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement. How often have we heard about the rush to a strike action happening without genuine negotiations. We are putting on the table that this has to occur in a genuine fashion. We are putting on the table that improvements to productivity have been discussed. It requires, at the minimum, that discussions about those radical ideas that I mentioned, such as improvements to productivity by removing restrictive work practices, have been considered. Under subsection 443(1), the protected action ballot from an applicant is enshrined.
These reasonable initiatives are going to increase our productivity, they are going to make us more competitive, they are going to make businesses sustainable and they will get rid of manifestly excessive claims—and, if the claims do have an obvious adverse effect on the productivity of the workplace, they will be considered. What we want to have is a two-way street; we want to put the 'fair' back into the Fair Work Act so that the employer or the developer of a project gets the economics of the situation considered. It is then a two-way street; it is not a one-way street with random manifestly excessive claims and rapid moves to industrial action occur before true negotiations take place, and that the workers, if they are involved in it, have had a ballot to see if they really want to go down that route. So, let us put the Fair Work Act back into a fair space so both sides get to do genuine negotiations. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I rise to make a ministerial statement about our achievements in schools and cross-border education.
Introduction
This government has honoured all its education election promises.
The difference between the coalition and Labor is that we are driving long term policies, to improve the quality of our education system, not short term politics to satisfy allied vested interests.
Australian school student performance results as measured by international testing have declined over the last 12 years. While national testing indicates some positive changes, overall student performance in key areas of numeracy and reading have not shown marked improvement.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
Education policy must now be measured not by how much money has been allocated, not by the number of teachers, not by classroom sizes, but whether public funds are being spent on what works to improve student outcomes!
Certainty and stability in school funding
We inherited a school funding mess from Labor with only three states fully signed up—hardly a national system.
We fixed the mess and honoured our election commitment of matching dollar for dollar the previous government's spending over the next four years.
More than that, we reinstated the $1.2 billion cut by the previous government because they felt it reasonable to completely exclude funding to states and territories that had not signed up.
Australia now has a national needs based funding system which includes loadings for disadvantage.
We did what Labor could not achieve by providing certainty and stability to schools.
Students First Initiatives
The Students First framework focuses on four priority areas:
Teacher Quality
Improving teacher quality has been more talked about than acted upon for far too long.
Teacher quality is known to be the greatest in-school contributor to student performance.
We want better teacher standards and training to produce great teachers with practical skills to teach effectively in the classroom.
Hence, I have appointed the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on reforming teacher education.
I expect to receive the final report soon.
To ensure our vision for teacher reform is achieved I appointed the internationally recognised Professor John Hattie as the new chair of the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership.
We have also expanded the Teach for Australia program which fast tracks high-calibre non-teaching graduates into disadvantaged schools.
School autonomy
Giving parents, teachers and principals a greater say in how their schools are run is a key ingredient to improving student performance.
All states and territories are moving in this direction.
To support the states and territories further we have invested $70 million over four years through our Independent Public School initiative.
I am pleased to report that most states and territories have now signed agreements to participate.
We are delivering what we promised.
Promoting parental engagement
Research shows that when parents are engaged in their children's education, their children perform better.
We have committed $1 million per year over four years to the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) to research parental engagement and inform future policy actions. The Independent Public Schools initiative will also promote greater parental involvement in their children's school.
A robust National Curriculum
A robust national curriculum is one of the foundations of a quality education. It must be up to date, relevant, balanced and understandable to all parents. We established, as promised, an independent review. It reported in October and has been widely praised because it focused on getting the national curriculum back to basics—to what really matters.
Implementation will be a priority during 2015 following consultation with state and territory education ministers at our 12 December education ministers' council.
NAPLAN faster turn ar ound
This government supports the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy—NAPLAN—but results have been taking too long to be returned to teachers. We promised to reduce the NAPLAN turnaround time. I am pleased to report that preliminary results are now being provided four weeks earlier. We are delivering.
NAPLAN Online
We are moving to have online delivery for NAPLAN in 2017 for schools that are ready. We have progressed this project from in-principle agreement, to allocating $24.7 million so it can start in less than three years. This is a great step forward. It will allow teachers a faster and better understanding of their students' abilities so as to improve every students' performance. I thank the state and territory education ministers for their cooperation and collaboration in bringing this about.
Australian Education Act 2013
Nothing better contrasts the approach of the coalition to the conduct of the former government than our changes to the Australian Education Act 2013. Labor rushed the passage of the current act, resulting in numerous errors. Our amendments passed the parliament and have not only fixed these but have allowed us to provide an extra $6.8 million for non-government schools that have significant numbers of Indigenous boarding students from remote areas. This fixed an identified funding shortfall which the previous government failed to provide.
But more needs to be done. Following recent consultations there was unanimous agreement from stakeholders that the command-and-control aspects of the act place unnecessary regulatory burdens on all schools. We will address this problem next year when we introduce further amendments to the act.
Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools (Good to Great Schools)
In remote primary schools that have a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, NAPLAN results show basic English literacy is not being achieved. Evidence suggests that alphabetic teaching approaches are beneficial for children who are having difficulty learning to read. We appointed Good to Great Schools Australia to introduce alphabetic teaching approaches under our Flexible Literacy in Remote Primary Schools program.
Nearly 40 schools across Western Australia, Queensland and Northern Territory will benefit in 2015. This will help to close the gap between students from remote areas and those based in metropolitan areas.
Disability
The Australian government is committed to assisting students with disability, and this year introduced a loading which provided over $1 billion of Australian government funding. This is more funding for students with disability than ever before. In 2015 this will increase by $100 million.
Mr Champion interjecting—
I thank the member for Wakefield for pointing out the large number of my colleagues who have come in to support this ministerial statement.
They are flocking like gulls to a chip.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
You get back to doing your texting on the mobile phone. We know how interested you are in education policy, member for Adelaide!
You are the texter. I cannot compete with you when it comes to texting.
You are probably playing games on your phone, are you? I like to work on my phone.
We continue to work with state and territory governments to further refine the funding loading for students with disability to better reflect their needs.
STEM
The government is restoring a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—subjects in schools, so essential to ensuring a competitive and innovative economy. Consequently, we have allocated:
Hear! Hear!
I continue:
Following the decision of the previous government to provide no ongoing funding for school chaplains, I am pleased to report all state and territory governments have now agreed to implement the government's new chaplaincy program. Funding is available for the 2015 school year and applications are currently being handled by the states and territories.
Cross-border education
In the time remaining, I would like to update the House on recent developments in international education and how the government is developing a two-way street in this important area. International education is part of our plan to build a more diverse, world-class economy—a five-pillar economy—to unleash Australia's real economic potential. By developing a world-class, five-pillar economy we will deliver more jobs.
International education is Australia's largest services export. Under Labor the value of this industry plummeted. Recent figures released by the Department of Education suggest that, under the coalition, international education has grown by over a billion dollars in just one year. This is vital income for the Australian economy.
But international education is about much more than economic prosperity for the nation. Relationships developed through international education underpin our engagement with the rest of the world. They are the foundation for future research collaboration. They assist to maintain trade, investment and goodwill. They make our innovative achievements and scholarly assets more visible to the world. They keep us competitive and ensure Australia does not get left behind.
This government is working hard to:
The New Colombo Plan offers Australian undergraduates prestigious scholarships and grants for study and internships/mentorships in the Indo-Pacific region. More than 3,100 students will benefit through the 2015 round.
Endeavour s cholarships
We will support 682 Endeavour scholarship recipients to undertake researcher mobility, because international collaboration is well known to lead to more innovation than single-country research. I have also established a number of new education agreements with counties in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
China and Laos visit
I recently visited China and Laos to participate in education meetings under the auspices of the East Asia Summit. Education ministers committed to the development of a post-2015 plan of action.
While in Beijing, I met with my Chinese counterpart, Minister for Education, Mr Yuan Guiren, to discuss the Australia-China education and research relationship and the importance of two-way student mobility through our New Colombo Plan.
Indonesia MOU and Centre
During the East Asia Summit I renewed Australia's agreement in education and training with the Republic of Indonesia.
This reaffirms the importance Australia places on the education relationship with Indonesia.
It sets a strong foundation for continued engagement over the next five years by growing people-to-people links through greater two-way student and academic mobility.
The government is also supporting the Australia-Indonesia Centre, announced by the Prime Minister last year.
This centre aims to strengthen business, cultural, educational, research and community links and build mutual understanding.
Monash University leads the centre, in partnership with other universities and CSIRO. I met with the new Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, Margaret Gardner, only yesterday evening to talk about not only the centre but her support for our education reforms.
At the East Asia summit of education ministers, I also had the opportunity to sit down and talk to my counterparts from South Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Singapore and Loas.
Australia-UK Education Dialogue
Earlier in the year I also visited the then Minister of State for Universities and Science, the Right Honourable David Willetts in the UK.
We agreed to establish an inaugural Australia-UK Education Dialogue. As my department recently noted in Senate committee hearings, it is the first time an initiative like this has ever been done before.
Next year we will continue our efforts and consult over a draft National Strategy for International Education.
Conclusion
Madam Speaker, this government is improving Australian education as promised.
I move:
That the House take note of the document.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Adelaide to speak for 13 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 6½ minutes.
Question agreed to.
Doesn't it just demonstrate what an utter farce these government's claims are, to have had a year of achievement, when they try to point to their schools achievement, of all things, to try to prove this. One thing we should at least be grateful of is that there are many within the sector who thought that this minister had forgotten he had responsibility for schools. He has been so side-tracked in his fruitless pursuit to strip our universities of one-fifth of their funding and trying to introduce $100,000 degrees for Australian undergraduate students that he has failed to even remember that he is meant to have responsibilities for schools, and people have been scratching their heads wondering where this minister, missing in action, has been.
We do recognise that the minister has rediverted his attention away from his hapless efforts in higher education to at least talk about schools. Unfortunately, though, it has not been a year of achievement in schools and education by this government. Instead, we are here to lament their year of utter failure in this regard. When it comes to schools policy, it has been a year of broken promises. It has been, sadly, a year of squandered opportunities, a year that has been spent by the minister and by the government on petty politics and destruction and on absolute destruction of the goodwill that had been built up in the sector and in the really significant and important reform and progress that had been made. It is a shameless and a brazen move by the minister to come into the chamber today, on the last day of the sitting year, and try to crow about the government's achievements in these areas. I guess we should not be surprised by shameless and brazen moves by a minister who just tried to criticise me about text messaging in a week when his own text messaging habits have been a subject of national debate.
It has been nothing but another thinly veiled attempt to deny reality and to try to rewrite history. It is a very tired trick in the playbook of what has very quickly become an utterly dysfunctional and chaotic government—a government which has proven themselves capable of three-word slogans but incapable of serious policy and incapable of the serious commitment we need to lift our schools' performance.
In contrast to the glossy statements and the brave act of denial that we have just seen from the minister, I will offer an honest stocktake of the government's achievements when it comes to schools policy and I will make this assessment against the criteria that this government set for themselves by what they told the Australian public before the last election they would do if elected. Before the election, the government promised:
Kevin Rudd and I are on an absolute unity ticket when it comes to school funding.
That is what the now Prime Minister said. We know that the minister said:
You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.
He went on to say:
We have agreed to the government's school funding model.
He also told the Australian people:
We are committed to the student resource standard, of course we are. We are committed to this new school funding model.
On election day, in South Australia, when voters turned up at their polling booths, we saw the large signs where this government was desperately trying to deceive the Australian people. The last thing people saw before they went in to vote were large signs saying: 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.'
Let's look at how the government's year of what they call achievement lines up against the promises that they made to the Australian public. The government has broken every promise. They have cut all additional funding for the fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms. They have cut $80 billion from schools and hospitals over the next decade—the biggest ever cut that this country has seen when it comes to schools policies, and they have the gall to come into this House and tried to crow about a year of achievement when it comes to schools. They have cut $100 million a year from the More Support for Students with Disabilities program and failed in their promise for more funding from 2015. They have let the state governments off the hook by promising not to enforce their funding obligations under the Gonski agreements and they have locked school funding to CPI from 2018.
Those opposite try to say that this is not a cut at all, but let us just consider that the current legislation makes it very clear that school funding will be indexed at 4.7 per cent moving forward. This government's budget papers make it very clear that school funding will be indexed at CPI, which is currently 2.5 per cent moving forward. They can try to say that black is white all that they like, but we and the Australian public know that that is a very clear cut, and it is a devastating cut for every school right across the country. The budget papers need to be crystal clear about this.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The minister interjects and says, 'Lies'. He may try to say that 2.5 per cent is not less than 4.7 per cent. I would challenge the minister to try to put that case to the Australian public, because the government continually take the Australian public for fools. We know that this is a cut. It is spelt out in their budget papers how big a cut this is and it is ripping almost $30 billion from schools right across Australia, and then they come into this House and say that black is white and that it is not really happening. We know that they have not had the guts to change the act, but it is a cut in anyone's language.
Of course, we know that there are two hallmarks of this government's approach to education policy. Firstly, there is uncertainty and chaos, which we have seen in both schools and in higher education policy over the last year. Secondly, and arguably worse, there is the hypocrisy and the deception. We have seen that, again, in a statement that the minister just made to the House. I would like to refer to the actual words of the minister where he stated: 'Education policy must now be measured by where public funds are being spent on what works to improve student outcomes'. I would say that the minister is absolutely right in those words, but he is not right in what he is actually doing, which is something very different.
On too many occasions to count the Prime Minister and the minister have actually stressed that Commonwealth funding for schools is, 'No strings attached'. The minister then comes into this House and tries to argue: 'It's not the amount of money; it's what you are spending it on that is important'. At the same time he is saying to the state governments: 'Here you go. Here is a blank cheque. Here is some school funding, but you can spend it on whatever you like, because we are getting rid of these so-called control-and-command elements and we are offering'—their own words—'a no-strings-attached approach'. How you can reconcile those two sentences and not be seen to be entirely hypocritical is something which I would love to hear the minister explain?
Don't you trust the states?
The minister asks: Don't you trust the states?' What I actually believe is that the Commonwealth government should have accountability mechanisms to make sure that we are increasing school funding, not just for the sake of the dollar figure, but to make sure that that funding is going specifically towards programs to improve outcomes for students. I do not think that is a particularly radical approach. I think it makes sense that the Australian public would think that the government has some accountability mechanisms in place and is making sure that dollars are being directed towards the areas which are going to have a real impact and lift student results.
The Gonski agreements have made it crystal clear that enforcements should be made. This government have walked away from ensuring that that additional funding is directed towards the five key areas of reforms. They have washed their hands of the responsibility, and it is unimaginable that such an irresponsible approach could be taken to billions of dollars in Commonwealth schools funding. Of course, we already know that there are states that are making the most of this in that they are receiving money from the Commonwealth for their schools but they are cutting more money from their state budgets for schools and seeing school results actually go backwards.
Contrast this with Labor's vision with the work that was done, not just by the previous government, but by the entire sector who all took part in the biggest review that we have had of Australia's school system in over 40 years. We went through this process and we had students, teachers, parents, academics and principals come together and say: 'What do we need to do to lift our school outcomes?' We need to recognise that we do have a serious problem in Australia's schools. We do need to recognise that we have serious inequality when it comes to the results of our students. We need to recognise that the gap between well-off and disadvantaged students is wider than the OECD average, and it is growing. We also need to recognise that in this country, right now under our watch, regional students lag behind their city peers by almost a year and remote students are almost two years behind. We were willing to tackle this head on. We went through the process and came up with the solutions. The important thing is that this nation now knows the solutions that this minister refuses to implement. He should be absolutely ashamed of that.
Sadly, we are not just lamenting a year of failure when it comes to our schools. We are also looking forward to what is next on the agenda. I think it is important to note that we have seen a number of examples recently where the Prime Minister has made statements. For example, earlier this week he said:
It would be better if the states could deal with their responsibilities from own-source revenues rather than having to argue with the Commonwealth to fund their schools.
What we see in the year ahead is that this government have set themselves up to try to wash their hands of all responsibilities for public schools. We need to make very clear that this is not about reform. This is about more cuts on their behalf. We also make very clear—and I have no doubt whatsoever—that whilst those opposite might want to completely walk away from schools funding and from our public schools, it is the absolute role of the federal government to try to ensure this nation's international competitiveness. It is the role of the federal government to ensure that our nation has the skills that we need for the future, and it is the role of the federal government to make sure that we are as productive an economy as we can possibly be. You cannot do that if you walk away from our education system and from investing in having the best possible schools across the nation.
We know that the minister also bragged about his school chaplains announcement. How hypocritical is it for a government to talk about the need for schools to have more autonomy yet, at the same time, for the federal minister to say: 'You no longer have the choice about whether you have a welfare officer, a counsellor, or a religious chaplain. We as the federal government, I as the federal education minister, are dictating that you no longer have a choice'? The over-600 non-religious welfare officers have to go. No longer will the government fund them because, rather than giving schools autonomy, rather than leaving it to principals and school communities to work out who can best serve their community, this minister has made the decision for them. If they are not strictly linked to a religious organisation, they can no longer attract funding. How is that in line with increased autonomy for our schools?
The minister talked about higher education and tried to claim credit for the recovery in international education. Anyone who actually understand international education will know that reputation and quality is everything, and it was the hard work of the previous government— (Time expired)
I present a copy of my ministerial statement to the House.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
To ensure the House can sit past five o'clock tonight in the event that the Senate continues to sit, I move:
That standing order 31 (Automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (Limit on business) be suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
The big idea behind the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 is that productivity should drive wage negotiations and wage outcomes, and that this will balance real wage increases against ensuring low levels of unemployment. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to ensure that, when approving an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that productivity improvements at the workplace were discussed during bargaining for the agreement. All of the existing enterprise agreement approval requirements under the Fair Work Act will be retained.
The bill also amends the Fair Work Act to provide further guidance and greater transparency regarding the circumstances in which protected action ballot orders can be made. It ensures that the Fair Work Commission must not make a protected ballot order where it is satisfied that the claims of an applicant for a protected action ballot are manifestly excessive or, importantly, would have significantly adverse impacts on productivity at the workplace. The idea that productivity should be at the heart of wage negotiations and wage outcomes is not a new one. We saw it, perhaps, at its best during the period of the prices and incomes accords. This idea was a bedrock of the accords driven by the Labor government in the 1980s, which were a considerable contributor to helping Australia out of its economic malaise at the time.
Let us have a little bit of a look at the importance of productivity, or doing things smarter—which is what we really mean when we are talking about productivity in the workplace. In the medium term and in the long term and to some extent even in the short term we know that productivity is absolutely central to our standard of living improving.
Paul Krugman, the well-known Nobel laureate economist—who is, I should say, very much not on our side of politics—has said:
Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.
The point here is that we want to raise wages. We on this side of the House want to raise wages. We do not want to reduce them. But we know, as Krugman points out, that if we want wages to go up we have to raise labour productivity. We know from years and years of economic research that, if wages go up faster than productivity, unemployment rises. This is a very basic result in economics. But let us go beyond the theory. Let us have a look at what some of the researchers have said.
I will look at a paper written by none other than the member for Fraser and published in the Australian Economic Review in 2003. At the time he was at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard University—a great institution. He did a very interesting piece of work where he looked at six increases in wages in Western Australia between 1994 and 2001 to look at the impact of wages going up faster than productivity—minimum wages were the focus—on employment. On six occasions between 1994 and 2001 the minimum wage in WA was increased by between 3½ per cent and over nine per cent. After each of these increases the employment to population ratio—the employment rate—in WA fell relative to the rest of Australia. He then shows—he does the econometrics on this—that a one per cent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment by about 0.13. In fact, in a later correction to the paper, he said that that number was too low—in fact it should have been higher.
The really interesting part of this is that the employment impact is most substantial amongst younger employees, where the fall in employment is almost three times higher. If you raise wages faster than productivity, then you raise unemployment for younger people at three times the pace of the rest of the economy. The member for Fraser is a good economist and many other economists have confirmed that result. For the most part their results have been even stronger than his, but directionally they have confirmed exactly what he found—so we know that if you raise wages faster than productivity you drive up unemployment.
It is very important to note that productivity comes from far more than just squeezing employees. We know that productivity comes from working smarter, above all. That is innovation—working smarter; finding cleverer ways of doing the same things. Australian businesses, when encouraged to do so, have been extraordinarily good at doing exactly this. We also know that productivity comes from investment—building the capital stock—in public infrastructure: in roads, rail and telecommunications, and from private sector investment, which we saw starting to fall away dramatically in the latter period of the Labor government.
Australia has been at its very best when it has been delivering rising wages aligned with strong productivity. In our great economic history since European settlement we have consistently avoided oversupply of unskilled workers, and we should continue to do so. In doing so, we have been able to achieve rising real wages aligned with rising productivity. Central to that have been very high levels of capital investment putting upward pressure on wages, and we should celebrate that—that has been absolutely central to the economic miracle of 200 years that we have seen in this country.
I spoke about unemployment, and, of course, at the heart of any wage negotiation is this issue of unemployment. But nowhere has this become worse, particularly in the Labor years, than in the case of youth unemployment. There is no question that youth unemployment was a disaster during the period from 2007 to 2013.
Given the money that the Labor Party claims to have spent on jobs and skill creation and skill development, and the number of programs they claim to have put into place, we might have expected that the track record would in fact be superb. But let us have a look at the facts. Between the time they got into government in 2007 and the time they left in 2013, there was a significant increase in youth unemployment. Note here that, in the four years leading up to the new Labor government in 2007, we saw a 13 per cent growth under the Howard government in youth employment. But between 2008 and 2013, we saw an eight per cent reduction in youth employment. So we went from a 13 per cent increase in employment to an eight per cent reduction in youth employment across the economy.
At the same time, we can look at youth participation rates. They were running merrily along between 2004 and 2008, rising from 70 per cent participation up to 71 per cent—nice work by the Howard government. But, from early 2008 through to 2013, there was a reduction in participation for younger Australians from 71 per cent to 66 per cent—a disastrous drop; a five per cent reduction across the time of the Labor government.
They might say, 'That is all right; we were putting them all into training.' But we also find that the youth unemployment rate went from nine per cent in January 2008 to 12.4 per cent by the end of 2013. What a shameful record of youth employment and youth unemployment we saw from the last Labor government. We know there are terrible hot spots in western and north-western Tasmania. It got to 21 per cent unemployment under the Labor-Greens alliance, destroying jobs in Tasmania; in Cairns it was almost 21 per cent again; in North Adelaide it was around 20 per cent; and in south-eastern Tasmania it was 19.6 per cent—a social and economic disaster.
So the question is: what are we doing to address this? And alongside what is being proposed in this bill, we are working hard to strengthen the economy—and we know that a strong economy equals strong jobs growth. We are negotiating free trade agreements. We are investing record dollars in public infrastructure. We are removing excess taxation. We are reforming training and education—reforming our vocational education and training system. And we are establishing world-class employment services.
But this is not all. This legislation asks the Fair Work Commission to consider whether productivity was part of the negotiations in coming to an enterprise agreement. But we need the Fair Work Commission to come to terms with the scale of this problem and begin to address it. Indeed, the old industrial relations club used to understand the role of productivity, as I said earlier. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke understood that real wage hikes in the face of sluggish productivity are a disaster.
So what has the Fair Work Commission been doing? The short answer is that it has been making the situation worse, and is prioritising large wage hikes above jobs for young Australians, by not paying attention to productivity. This has been absolutely at its worst for the young in our population.
As I said, we all want rising wages; this is a bedrock of Australia's economic success. But you achieve rising wages by working smarter, investing more, building more infrastructure and improving our education system. You cannot simply raise wages in the absence of productivity gains.
I want to focus on two particular decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. The first was the modern awards review focused on apprentices, trainees and juniors of August 2013. A full bench of the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on apprentice provisions in the two-year review of modern awards. It granted wage increases for first- and second-year apprentices, phased over a 12-month period. They effectively hiked the four-year wage structure for a junior apprentice who has completed year 12 from, in the first year, 42 per cent of full salary to 55 per cent, and, in the second year, from 55 per cent to 65 per cent. Effectively, what they were doing was significantly, sharply, increasing wages for first- and second-year apprentices, and, importantly, dissuading employers from wanting to take those apprentices on. The Fair Work Commission also decided that adult apprentices should receive 80 per cent of the fully qualified tradesperson's rate, which is a 10 per cent increase over what it previously was, and they passed on many costs of apprenticeships to employers, including such things as textbooks and travel costs.
This is an extraordinary conclusion, and it flies in the face of ensuring that wages track productivity. There is no question that this will be contributing to the unemployment of young people in Australia.
In a second decision, in March this year, a full bench of the Fair Work Commission granted an application by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association to increase the rate of pay for 20-year-old retail employees from 90 per cent to 100 per cent of the adult rate—a 10 per cent wage increase. There is no argument to say that we have seen 10 per cent productivity gains during this time. So the impact of this decision, based on research we have seen from people such as the member for Fraser, must be to raise unemployment amongst young people.
This irresponsible bias, to ignore the basic economics of employment relationships, is a serious problem for young people, for employers and for Australia. The most disenfranchised in our population are the unemployed, and to increase the number of people who are out of employment through these sorts of decisions is a travesty.
It is time for the Fair Work Commission to recognise this, and to show some concern and compassion about the extraordinary increase in youth unemployment bestowed on us by the previous Labor government. Yes, we need to ensure that there is a strong economy with lots of job creation, strong support for job seekers and extensive support for training and education, but we are doing all of that. Now it is time for the Fair Work Commission to get real and confront youth unemployment.
This bill provides an opportunity to do exactly that by increasing the focus of the fair work legislation on productivity. I commend this bill to the House.
It is clear from the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 that the government has learnt nothing from the Work Choices debacle of the mid-2000s. Given this bill's very poor construction and the ambiguity within the bill, it seems that the bill really does appear to be nothing more than an attempt to undermine the right to bargain collectively, freely and autonomously and to undermine the right to strike.
Having said that, perhaps people more generous than I would want to give the government the benefit of the doubt on the bill, and for that reason I will be looking very carefully at the outcomes of the Senate inquiry into the bill to see whether or not there is some merit to the changes that are being proposed. But, given the circumstances of the bill being introduced, the timing, and the way the bill has been put together, it does really seem to be much more about perception that substance. It is another attempt to imply that the fair work legislation is somehow the cause of difficulties for labour productivity in this country, which is an issue to which I will return.
But before I do, I want to generally talk about the reasons why I said that the bill was an attempt to undermine the right to bargain collectively, freely and autonomously and an attempt to undermine the right to strike. Those issues go to the heart of one of the very clear differences between Liberal Party and the Labor Party. In the Labor Party, consistently with international law, we believe that there is a right to collectively bargain and that collective bargaining is to be preferred to individual bargaining in the workplace. To the contrary, the Liberal Party has always preferred individual bargaining, and we saw that under Work Choices.
In Work Choices, the Australian workplace agreements were statutory individual contracts that were able to, and did, undermine minimum working standards and conditions in this country. By way of example: 63 per cent of Australian workplace agreements made under Work Choices removed penalty rates, another pet hate of the coalition.
I am sure that members opposite do not necessarily want to be outed as still supporting individual contracts, but if you want evidence of that just have a look at the other fair work bill that is presently before this parliament, and has been for most of the year. The other fair work bill of course seeks to privilege and support their use of individual contracts by changing the individual flexibility agreement regime.
It is unfortunate and regrettable, but the Liberals seem to have learnt very little from their experience with Work Choices and are still pushing the bandwagon for statutory individual contracts, which of course are deeply problematic, and we saw that under Work Choices. We saw the conditions that were stripped away using AWAs at the time. But, on this side of the House, we understand and support collective bargaining. It is also, as a matter of international law, something that should be supported. You might recall that the ILO strongly criticised the Australian workplace relations laws known as Work Choices because of the way that they privileged individual negotiations ahead of collective bargaining.
To explain what I mean when I talk about our international obligations in respect of collective bargaining, I just want to mention a very helpful article, ' Protected industrial action and voluntary collective bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009'by Shae McCrystal from the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. To recite the discussion about our international obligations, Shae says:
Australia is bound in international law to respect the right to strike under Article 8(1)(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as a component of the principles of freedom of association protected by the Constitution of the ILO … and as a component of the obligation to respect the right of workers to organise to protect their economic and social interests in Article 3 of the ILO’s Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention … obligation is not limited to protection of the right to strike for the purposes of collective bargaining, but extends to recognition of the right to strike for workers to protect and further their ‘economic and social interests’ … Further, Article 4 of the ILO’s Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 … requires ratifying States to encourage and promote the full development of voluntary collective bargaining between employers, their associations and workers’ associations. The essential element of this obligation is the promotion of collective bargaining which is of a voluntary nature. This has been found to imply recognition of the autonomy of the bargaining parties.
That is a very good and convenient summary of the international obligations that we have.
In contrast to the international obligations that we have, this is a bill that places fetters on bargaining parties' autonomy and rights to conduct negotiations freely. Again, it harks back to Work Choices—continually trying to regulate what parties have to do when they are bargaining in the workplace. If you want to talk about over-regulation and red tape, think about the prohibited content provisions of the Work Choices legislation at the time. There was a lengthy list of things that parties were not at liberty to include in their enterprise agreements—a lengthy list of restrictions and limitations on parties' autonomy and right to collectively bargain freely. And what are we now seeing with this bill? We are seeing a new obligation, a new box to be ticked when an application is made to the Fair Work Commission to approve an agreement.
Of course parties talk about productivity in their bargaining. But this legislation is not about encouraging productivity measures; it is about finding another piece of red tape for parties to have to go through when they go to the commission and ask for approval of their workplace agreement.
One difficulty with adding in another consideration for the commission to take into account in the bargaining approval process, as my colleague the shadow minister pointed out, is that it can hand a party that does not want a bargain to be struck a veto power. So by refusing to talk about productivity and discuss productivity in the course of bargaining until other issues, such as wage rises, have been dealt with or at all, the employer is effectively adding another roadblock. Obviously, it would be an employer because it is generally unions and workers that are motivated in seeking new enterprise agreements, continuing to build on the conditions and wage rates in existing previous agreements. You are giving a tool to a party who does not want to bargain, to say, 'I'm not going to allow for this box to be ticked,' and it will take away the ability of the commission to approve the agreement. Of course, the real consequence of taking away the commission's ability to approve an agreement is that conditions do not change, pay does not go up and the productivity discussion in and of itself has been used as a tool to prevent those things from happening. It is a fetter on the commission's ability to approve the agreement and that fetter, again, interferes with the rights of the parties to conduct the negotiations as they see fit. Why should they not be able to conduct the negotiations as they see fit?
Another issue with the bill in terms of collective bargaining and the right to strike is the change to the protected action ballot provisions. A protected action ballot is important to the right to strike in this country. We have had protected industrial action in this country since the early 1990s. One thing that happened under Work Choices was the introduction of protected action ballots. Protected action ballots were possible prior to Work Choices, but they became mandated under Work Choices. The provisions said that if you want to exercise your right to strike in this country, with the immunity that you get for protected action—immunity from being sued or fined—then you have to first have a ballot. But you cannot just have the ballot; you have to go to the commission and ask them to give you an order allowing you to have the ballot. That is what a protection action ballot is. I know, having appeared in applications for protection action ballots myself, that it is a process that can be derailed by a party who does not want to bargain or does not want another party to be able to take protected industrial action. And which employer does want their workers to take protected action? Very few of them, I wager.
But, having said that, I think the fact that, as a lawyer, I appeared in protected action ballots demonstrates that they already attract legal involvement and that is a cost to bargaining, a cost to the parties, and a cost to the employer and the workers.
If this bill goes through—and we will see what the Senate says about it; perhaps there is merit to it—on my first reading of it, it seems to me that this will be another opportunity for parties to lawyer up, go down to the commission and pick fights about the nature of the claims and their effect in the event that they are granted. It is a bit nonsensical, of course, because a claim is only a claim. Unless it is actually granted or agreed to, it can have no effect on productivity. But the broader point is that you can readily envisage lengthy affidavit material, trawling through any of the claims that have been made in the course of negotiations for the collective agreement, picking fights over each of them and having lengthy legal proceedings not so that people can take the protected action itself but so they can actually get the ballot and then decide whether as a collective to take the protected action.
In terms of the access to justice issues and the ability for parties to progress through bargaining, it is an opportunity for lawyers to make some money. But it is not an opportunity that will be given to people to continue to move through the bargaining process in an orderly way and in a way that is free from unnecessary red tape.
We hear a lot about unnecessary red tape from the coalition, but making it more difficult to bargain at the workplace, taking away people's international obligations surely is, if nothing else, red tape.
As I said earlier, this is a curious bill. Obviously, the government have had many months to bring in this bill. They have brought it in at the end of the year. The other Fair Work Bill has been before the parliament for months. It is a bit clumsy in the way it has been drafted. But, to me, it also seems to be another example of attempts by some to imply that the Fair Work Act is somehow damaging for productivity. As anyone who paid any attention to the speech of Glenn Stevens, Reserve Bank of Australia governor, in Hobart, this year, would have noted , labour productivity is growing at a faster rate under the Fair Work Act than it grew under the Work Choices legislation. The governor gave labour productivity as an example of something that was pleasing and that sectors were working to improve productivity. The governor told us, in the graph that accompanied that speech, that it is growing at around two per cent per annum. So we know that labour productivity is on the increase. My friend and colleague Josh Bornstein has written an article suggesting that attempts to link the Fair Work Act to some sort of productivity crisis is hyperbole and, with respect, I completely agree with him. What he said was:
The productivity crisis campaign (PCC), which started in 2010, involved an all too familiar pattern: a loud and influential chorus of voices spanning big business, right wing print media and conservative politicians repeatedly trumpeting that IR laws were suffocating productivity and required urgent amendment to introduce greater flexibility.
He asked, rhetorically:
Where was the evidence for all of this? I undertook research to try and understand these concerns. No dice.
Where is the evidence that the Fair Work Act requires some sort of silly tweaking to affect labour productivity? Where is that evidence, given that, as I say, labour productivity has been increasing faster since the implementation of the Fair Work Act then it ever did during the Work Choices era?
The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Philip Lowe, made a speech recently to the Australian Business Economists conference in which he talked about what Australia needed to do in order to become a highly productive and great economy. Do you think the Deputy Governor said that the most pressing priority is to tweak the Fair Work Act to change the approval process and to change the protected action ballot provisions? He did not say that, you will be shocked to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. He said that we needed to invest in human capital. He talked about skills, he talked about knowledge, he talked about our relationship with Asia. He did not say we should fidget with the Fair Work Act. For that reason, I think we should all be very sceptical about this bill.
When I went to bed last night I had a big smile on my face. I had been to the coalition Christmas party, where we thanked all our staff. It was a terrific night. Everyone was in great spirits. The Prime Minister spoke. He thanked our staff for the hard work they do. There was a great feeling of camaraderie there. After the party, I did a little bit of work in my office and then headed home. As is my wont, I got my iPod out. I thought: 'I'll just watch 7.30 because Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, is going to be on it. This will be worth watching.' Leigh Sales said: 'Leader of the Opposition, you've left the government with an enormous budget hole. MYEFO is about to once again show that the income the government receives is going to go down. Spending is not stopping because all the spending cuts promised are being blocked in the Senate. What is your solution?' The Leader of the Opposition said: 'What we need to do is improve productivity. "Productivity" is a word the government has stopped using.' I thought: 'Isn't this wonderful news! This is a real change that we are seeing here. The Leader of the Opposition has recognised that we must improve the nation's productivity. This is wonderful news.' So I went to bed with a big smile on my face thinking this is going to be fantastic.
So I came in here today and thought: 'Let's see whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to back his words with some action. We've got a bill here which is all about increasing the nation's productivity. This is going to be great. All of a sudden the opposition is going to say, "Yes government, we're prepared to help you."' And then, sadly, I had to sit through 15 minutes of the member for Griffith. And what did she have to offer in terms of our efforts to increase productivity? I am not saying that this is a ground-breaking bill that is going to change the nation's productivity overnight; but it is going to do a bit, it is going help. But what did we get from the opposition? Sadly, we got nothing but negativity—and, not only that, we got the outlandish statement that this is putting additional red tape into the process and that we should be taking red tape out of the workplace relations system. If the member for Griffith truly believes that, then I look forward to seeing what the opposition proposes to do. If she wants to deregulate the workplace, if she wants to take all the red tape out, we on this side are all ears, we are ready to listen to what the opposition has to say. We are extremely keen to take out of the system the red tape that was added in the last six years to the extent that we are sadly now seeing once again youth unemployment and long-term unemployment rise in this country to levels which all of us here collectively should be alarmed at and saying we need to collectively do something about. The member for Griffith said, 'Where is the evidence?' That is the evidence of how the six previous years of Labor government failed. There is the evidence of what their changes in the Fair Work Act did. Have a look at what is happening to youth unemployment and long-term unemployment in this nation. You could not have evidence more stark. Everyone said when the Fair Work laws came in that youth unemployment and long-term unemployment would be the litmus test of those laws. Sadly, they have failed—and that is the evidence.
So what are we trying to do here in terms of changing the productivity debate in the nation? The explanatory memorandum sets it out—and this is not major:
Examples of improvement to productivity may include but are not limited to elimination of restrictive or inefficient work practices; initiatives to provide employees with greater responsibilities or additional skills directly translating to improved outcomes; and improvements to the design, efficiency and effectiveness of workplace procedures and practices.
That is what we are asking for here. Yet those opposite cannot bring themselves to say they understand that, given the current circumstances the nation finds itself in, we need to do something to lift labour productivity. If we are to address the current budgetary circumstances, improving and increasing labour productivity has to be a key aspect of it.
And that is what this bill seeks to do. It is part of a suite of bills that honour the commitments that we took to the last election. There has been much outrage from those opposite when, on occasion, we have had to readjust some of our policies because of the budgetary circumstances we find ourselves in. We have been accused of all sorts of things, including breaking election promises. Yet here we are, with three workplace relations bills that implement the policies we took to the last election, and when we try to implement them, what do those opposite do? They say to us, 'Sorry, no; you cannot implement the commitment you took to the last election.' The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
So, what is this bill, in greater detail, seeking to do? The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 implements the final tranche of the government's amendments to the Fair Work Act that were clearly outlined in the coalition's election policy to improve the Fair Work laws. The bill makes three important improvements to the processes of bargaining whilst retaining important employee protections and employee rights. The improvements are: putting productivity back on the agenda, as I have outlined, by requiring parties to at least discuss improvements to productivity during negotiations for a new enterprise agreement, and ensuring that unions and employees do not use industrial action as a tool of first resort by ensuring that they have at least first attempted to engage in a meaningful discussion with the employer before resorting to industrial action. To ensure that the claims in support of which industrial action is being taken are not unrealistic or implausible, industrial action is an important employee right. It is a right that must be exercised responsibly rather than capriciously.
This is not radical legislation. This is legislation that implements policy that we took to the Australian people, and the Australian people gave us a tick to say yes, we approve of your policy agenda—then opposition, now government—and we vote you into office and would like to see it implemented. We must ask the question of why, sadly, those opposite will not allow us to implement our workplace relations agenda. And we need to take a step back, because we also need to look at why the changes to the Fair Work Act were put through by those opposite. They did it because they operate at the behest of the union movement, and they cannot objectively stand back and say: 'Okay, yes: unions, you are an interest group, and we understand what you are arguing for, but, as a government, we have to correctly listen to what you have to say, but we also have to take into account what employers are saying. And we also need to take account of those employees outside of the union movement, because, as we know, union movement membership is declining.'
If you are implementing legislation by listening to only one part of the debate, you get a skewed debate. And, as I highlighted earlier, that has consequences. And the sad thing at the moment is that the consequences are hitting our young and they are hitting the long-term unemployed. I ask the House collectively again to look at the statistics in those two key areas, because that is where the impact is being felt of the stubbornness of those opposite to not allow the government to implement the policies it took to the last election. And I would ask those opposite: what is wrong with us trying to put a productivity component into bargaining? What can be wrong with that? These are not unreasonable requests. Why won't you allow us to do it? Why won't you support this? This is asking that productivity be a component of bargaining.
Say you went out into the community and said, 'Well, we're actually opposing this.' And the explanatory memorandum sets out what they are opposing: 'elimination of restrictive or inefficient work practices; initiatives to provide employees with greater responsibilities or additional skills directly translating to improved outcomes; and improvements to the design, efficiency and effectiveness of workplace procedures and practices'. They are opposing that, at a time when we have to do everything we can—as the Leader of the Opposition said on 7.30 last night—to enhance the productivity of the nation. That is what he said last night. And I had a big smile on my face and thought, 'We're going to see a change from those opposite; we're going to see those opposite actually looking to do what is in the best interest of the nation rather than continuing to play political games.' Yet what do we have today? Back in the cold, hard reality of the chamber, the political games continue.
This government is about laying the foundations of long-term, sustainable growth for this nation. We know we have to do this to fix the budget. We know we have to do this to make sure that young Australians in particular have a future where they will have real incomes that are greater than ours. We want to set the next generation up so that they will have an improved standard of living compared with the one we enjoy here. But we need to wake up, because what is happening at the moment in this place is that every measure we take to try to do that is being opposed. And who will suffer the consequences? It will be our children and our grandchildren. And I would hope over Christmas that we can have a long hard think about that—about not what is in our short-term political interest but what is in the interests of the nation.
Christmas time is a time to reflect, and I say to my wonderful communities in Wannon: have a very merry Christmas. Enjoy the festive break and take some time to contemplate. And I say to those opposite: please do the same. Please reflect on where we are at, as a nation, at the moment. Because, if you will not willingly participate in us taking the action that we need to get the nation back on track, to make sure that we can provide the standard of living that we enjoy for our children and grandchildren, we as a nation are going to be all the poorer for it. So I ask you and beg you to think about that over Christmas.
At the beginning of my remarks I just want to reflect on a couple of things that the previous speaker mentioned. At the beginning of his remarks, the member for Wannon called on the member for Griffith to smile. Last night there were lots of parties around the place. There were lots of festivities.
A group of people who were not smiling when they came in to work today were our hardworking cleaners. With all the parties that come about come lots of bottles and lots of mess, but yet these cleaners do not get extra time to clean up our mess. They do not get extra time to make sure that this place is ready for work. They had to get on and work harder than they ever had before to make sure that this place was clean and ready for business today, cleaning up the mess left behind by people in this chamber and in this House today. Their productivity rates today were through the roof. They had to work overtime, really hard, to make sure this place was clean and ready.
This bill actually has nothing to do with productivity. It may say the word 'productivity', but it actually will not increase productivity in the workplace. This bill uses the word 'productivity' to actually attack workers, attack unions and attack their ability to bargain for a decent wage.
Our cleaners, as I mentioned, this morning worked really hard. They also today met to endorse their log of claims. The story of our cleaners here in Parliament House is a frustrating one, not just for themselves but for all the cleaners that we have in the country, particularly those working in government buildings. They have had a pay freeze. They have not had a wage increase for some time. Our cleaners here endorsed their log of claims asking their cleaning company, who is contracted by this government, for an extra 85c an hour. That would basically help them keep up with the cost of living. They are on minimum wage and they are hoping for, in their process of bargaining, an extra 85c an hour to help meet the cost of living.
Yet this bill says that they need to talk about productivity first, as part of the bargaining process. I hope their employer in the government is ready to talk about productivity and talk about increasing their time when it comes to the end of session to make it a fairer productivity. The cleaners here already work superhard, and I do not think anybody in this building would deny that they work superhard. Yet the requirements in this bill say that the employer has the ability to say, 'Before we even talk about you getting a decent pay rise because your pay has been frozen, we need to talk about productivity.'
The cleaners here have a very good story to talk about when it comes to productivity. There are working harder than any other person in this building to make sure this building is ready. I dare any member of parliament to stand up and say that they are not productive workers and that they are not meeting a high standard of productivity. The reason why the cleaners have to now bargain for a fair pay rise is because this government has scrapped the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines—another attack by this government on some of the lowest-paid workers in this building.
This bill, as I have said, is not about productivity. This bill is poorly constructed and bad policy. Its wording, I believe, is actually quite tricky. It actually seeks to undermine the genuine good faith bargaining process. A few words, a few changes and a few phrases swing the entire process of collective bargaining in the employers' favour. I am probably being a bit stronger on this than some of my other colleagues, but I just wanted to demonstrate a couple of examples of how this bill will swing in favour of militant employers as opposed to the militant unions the government likes to bash and beat the drum about.
Within this debate the government does not recognise that not every employer genuinely wants to bargain in good faith. There is a risk that this bill will give veto power to employers. A new requirement, which states that the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that improvements in productivity were discussed during the bargaining phase of the agreement, has now been inserted into this bill. What do you do if you are that low-paid cleaner, if you are already working superhard and you have backbreaking workloads? How do you become more productive if you are already working excessive workloads?
This bill gets away from the core principle of collective bargaining, where employers and employees sit down and genuinely engage in good faith bargaining. Introducing all of these new requirements that must be satisfied before the commission can approve an agreement puts more and more restriction on what can be bargained. It is not inconceivable to think of a situation where an employer says: 'I don't want to talk about productivity until we've discussed cutting wages, holidays and other conditions. I don't want to even talk about what we need to do to satisfy a silly rule that's been put in for the Fair Work Commissioner until we talk about cutting wages, holidays and other conditions.' There is example after example of where employers have done that. You just have to look at Victoria and what the former Liberal government did to the hard-working ambos. They refused to sit down and genuinely bargain in good faith around a log of claims before those hard-working ambos agreed to a number of conditions that the government had put on the table.
Does it mean that agreement can never be completed if a union refuses to budge on some matters? These changes will create constant deadlocks. What we need in our fair work system is not a system that creates deadlocks between bargaining groups. We need a system that allows groups to navigate their way through to an agreement. This amendment is another example of how this government, through this bill, seeks to deny workers the opportunity to genuinely bargain in good faith. It gives employers greater bargaining rights.
One of the areas which I think demonstrates this is their changes to protective action. The government have introduced a new provision which means that the Fair Work Commission must not make a protected action ballot if it is satisfied the applicant's claims are manifestly excessive, having regard to the conditions at the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates, or would significantly adversely impact the productivity of workplaces. That pretty much knocks out any form of industrial action. So when the members of the government stand up and say, 'We acknowledge that it is the right of a group of workers to take industrial action,' it is just total lip-service. The whole point of an employee being able to take industrial action is to remove their labour. So that is going to have an impact on the productivity of workplaces. This one particular change to the Fair Work Commission basically knocks out any employee's ability to take industrial action. They are using the word 'productivity' to disguise the fact that they are trying to knock out people's ability to be able to take industrial action, which has been a longstanding tradition in this country.
I have just a couple of examples when it comes to the militant employers that I have talked about. The government seeks to amend section 44(3) in the way in which the government proposes different and higher standards on unions wanting to take protected industrial action over those of employers. Let's talk about employer lockouts. The government likes to talk about militant unions, but what it is not talking about is employer lockouts.
An example is Schweppes. A few years ago around Christmas, multinational owned giant Schweppes locked out 150 workers at the Tullamarine factory. They were locked out after wanting to take protected industrial action to protect the rosters that they had. The employer locked them out because they were trying to impose on the workers a roster which would have seen them move from an eight-hour-a-day shift to a 12-hour-a-day shift, thus completely changing their workplace situation and removing something that we have held up in this country for such a long time: the eight-hour day. The employer locked them out, and these workers were without pay over the Christmas period. I will never forget that Christmas Day, being there with those workers locked out, out the front of their workplace. It was a very hot Christmas that Christmas, and they were there. They were there not because they wanted to see a massive increase in their pay. They were there because their employer wanted to radically change their roster, thus not only reducing their pay but significantly changing their workplace-life balance.
This bill is only going to aid the employers that do not want to genuinely bargain, that are actually going after fundamental basics and principles that Australians expect to have in their workplace. Another example in relation to this area has to be our cleaners and our shopping centre cleaners who, in bargaining at the Melbourne airport, also took industrial action. Pay talks broke down, again around Christmas, when 100 cleaners said that they would not accept a deal which was $4,000 a year less than other cleaners working at the airport. Again, our cleaners at the airports are low paid workers, and what the boss had put on the table through bargaining would have taken away several allowances and meal breaks which would have seen them paid $4,000 a year less. Now, if these particular amendments were already in place, the cleaners' ability to stand up and say, 'That's not fair. We won't accept that deal,' could have been knocked out by the commission because of the impact on productivity in the workplace. Yes, if a cleaner stops work, it impacts on the productivity of a workplace. It absolutely does because it means the toilets do not get cleaned. That is what it means.
This bill is not, as the government has said, about ensuring that workers continue to have that right to take industrial action. This bill is not, as this government says, about productivity. This bill is entirely about weakening workers' ability to collectively and genuinely bargain. This bill is about enhancing the employers who do not want to do the right thing and about giving them greater powers. There are examples that we have going on currently and in the last five to 10 years where companies have used bargaining to lock out workers, where companies have used bargaining to radically cut wages and conditions. Yet there is no attempt in this bill to see a levelling up of that playing field. This bill goes after workers and puts the veto opportunity in the employers' hands. This bill seeks to undermine the entire principle of collective bargaining, and it should be opposed.
What disappoints me the most about this bill is that the government have just not been honest. They are hiding behind the words of productivity. They are hiding behind the words of good-faith bargaining. But it could not be further from the truth. It denies Australian workers the right to collectively bargain in good faith with the employers. Collective bargaining has been a key feature of a fair and modern democratic society. Worse still, it creates deadlock in Fair Work Australia. There are going to be disputes where the employer or the employees may go too far. There are going to be disputes which need to be resolved by an independent umpire—Fair Work Australia. Yet all this bill does is make their job harder. It will create more deadlocks, more lockouts and more noisy actions, because it does not create an environment for genuine good-faith bargaining.
In conclusion, I hope that our cleaners here at Parliament House do not ever have to file for a protected industrial action ballot. I hope, when their employer reaches an agreement with a fair pay rise and goes to the government and say this is what we need increased in our contract price to pay your cleaners a fair deal, that the government listens and does the right thing by the hard-working cleaners, because under this bill they may not have the ability to take industrial action to get a fair outcome. I ask the House to oppose the bill.
Debate adjourned.
First of all to Warren Truss and Lyn, who I stand in proxy for at this point in time, we will welcome you back early in the new year. We know that you have had a bit of a hard run but we know that you will be back bigger and stronger than ever. Warren is for us on this side, and I think for the parliament, Cato the Elder. He is a person of natural sagacity, he is a person of political experience, he is a person who has used his farming to temper his politics and he is a brilliant asset in this place. He is widely respected and an extremely decent person.
To my colleagues in the other place, Nigel and Fiona, we thank you very much for the work that you have done in that intemperate environment which I once resided in, and we look forward next year to you continuing that odyssey. We will watch with great interest, some amusement and sometimes fury what goes on. To Mark Coulton and to Barry O'Sullivan, the respective whips, I thank you very much for the work that you have done in making sure that we, as a party, are well represented and diligent and are part of the proper process of government.
I propose today to endorse and will try my very best not to repeat so many of the previous comments. I might start by saying that, as an in globo tribute, I thank all who bring the continual endorsements from the public about the professional and polite way that the staff of this building deliver their services. From the security guards to the gardener, from the drivers to the attendants, from those who work fixing the air conditioners to those who work mowing the lawns—everything about this building is a tribute to them because when people come here they say they cannot believe how polite and how professional those in this building are.
This has been the first full year in government for the coalition. The first full year for any government is a dogfight—a dogfight in a fog; a fog of noise and fury and fast moving shadows, where staff try to triangulate targets and departments desperately warn of imminent collateral damage. However, this has been a year of delivery—we have started the dams program, we have delivered on drought, we have turned around the live cattle trade and we have finalised three free trade agreements that have made a vast difference to the prospects of soft commodities in this nation and their capacity to help us bring in the money to balance the books. Most importantly, we have started on that hard task of turning around the finances of our nation, basically getting the locomotive back on the railroad. If we do not deliver on that part, if we do not manage to make sure that the finances of this nation are on an even keel, then the legacy will be left to our children and it will be a debt for them to repay. No person of honour would ever intend to do that.
Christmas is a birth celebration, not a birthday. Without living in some way the deeper meaning of it, it does not achieve anything much away from shopping. Kindness counts more than presents. For some, it is merely a matter of photos and memories, and not hugs and laughter. For many, it is the loneliest time of the year. To those, the Christmas task falls on us to lighten their load and brighten their day. For most across this great nation of ours, people will be making plans—plans to pick up a case of beer and go home, to gather around the weatherboard and iron out west, or to collect the towels and the swimmers and head to the beach, or if they are lucky enough they can find a boat and get out on the harbour. For others, it is the brick and tile of the suburbs. People will celebrate in the luckiest country on earth.
Last night, I met a long-term friend from a long time ago, an ex-shearer. I happened to be walking back from having dinner and he was walking along in thongs and a T-shirt and he picked me out of the crowd. We sat down and had a couple of beers and he asked me, 'What goes on in this spaceship?' I felt like saying that people arrive with dreams and visions, which are beaten and tempered by the anvil of parliamentary reality, but I did not think that was the answer he was looking for. But it is true, some of those dreams and visions fail and some are cast out for scrap, but the rest is what is a large section of our lives. For many in regional areas, though, we have to make sure that this spaceship turns back into a parliament. We have to make sure that they understand the duties and complexities of what goes on here. At Christmas, National Party and other members use this break to cover vast distances to explain the decisions deliberated over here.
As I said at the start, I accept and reiterate all the endorsements that have been given by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Leader of the Opposition, but one needs to be repeated and that is the endorsement of our families—our wives, husbands and partners who patiently deal with the peculiar hand of political fate, who bring up the kids, who manage the house and the finances, who grimace at the state of question time and who have to live by our decisions and defend them, not actually having been part of them. Our children, too, who have grown up with an absentee parent who is never at sports, who is rarely at special days, who comes home grumpy and who leaves early, are the people who pay the greatest wage for our service here in this place.
We started the year with a drought. In some parts of our nation, we are finishing the year with a drought. We hope that this drought comes to a conclusion. But the office that will deal with that is not in this building. The office that deals with that is the same office we celebrate at Christmas time. I hope that the good Lord gives us rain and I hope that those who are going home travel safely. I thank all those who have put their shoulders to the wheel for our parliament. We look forward to a new year. We look forward with excitement to the prospect of the great honour of serving our nation again. All the best and God bless.
I will start, Madam Speaker, by thanking you for all of your hard work this year. I know that question time is not always much fun for you. We certainly appreciate the dedication and strength of character that you bring to your position.
Thank you very much.
I think the Minister for Agriculture might recognise this quote:
Self-reflection is the school of wisdom.
It is a quote that comes from Jesuit scholar and philosopher Baltasar Gracian. I think it is a time of year when self-reflection comes naturally to all of us. We look back on the year and our achievements and what we could have done better and what we still have to achieve for the year to come.
This year in particular for the opposition has been a year of some self-reflection because we saw the passing of three Labor giants this year—Gough Whitlam, Neville Wran and Wayne Goss. Amongst all of the sadness that we experienced at the loss of these three great men, we also had the opportunity to think about what Labor at its best can deliver for the Australian community and what, at our most optimistic, we can deliver for the people who we represent. So, amongst all of the sadness that we faced this year, we also faced this opportunity of reaching into our history and into our character and pulling out the threads of strength that have guided us in the past.
We also fought several state elections. We saw, for us, the sad loss of government in Tasmania. In South Australia we retained government despite all expectations. We won Victoria after just one term in opposition—a magnificent victory by Daniel Andrews. We saw the first ever Senate by-election in Western Australia. We also fought a by-election in the seat of Brisbane, and are now joined by the magnificent Terri Butler.
This is a time of reflection not just on the year's events. We also think about why it is that we are here. I believe that all of us here in this place are motivated by the sincerest desire to do good for the Australian community. I have very seldom felt any doubt about the motivation of the people who serve. I do not always agree with the way that they think the Australian community should progress or the way they think we should change our nation, but I do respect the fact that we have in this chamber and in the other place, too, members of parliament and senators who are motivated by sincere goodwill, who have a vision for our nation, who work very hard and who spend a lot of time away from their families and their communities, seeking to serve the people who they represent.
I also think about the people who serve our community not in the House of Representatives and the Senate but in many, many ways we see throughout our community. We see teachers, nurses, doctors, health professionals, emergency services workers, members of our defence forces, research scientists and medical research specialists—people who choose their line of work and their life's work not on the basis of the dollar that it will earn them or the public acclamation that they will receive but in the sincerest possible way to do good for their communities and to do good for people who, in many cases, they will never meet or see. They dedicate their lives to their community, to this Australian community. In considering our work here this year, I want to think also of those people, who most often go unremarked, who very seldom attract the notice of the Australian community, but without whom we could not function as a society.
While we are relaxing on Christmas Day, we will see many of those people continue about their work—staff in our hospitals, police on the beat, our defence forces overseas and emergency services workers available to be called out. I want to think about and give credit today to the work they will be doing on Christmas Day and during this holiday season, particularly, as summer comes, our bushfire firefighters, who are often called out in dangerous circumstances at this time of year.
I also want to mention not just the people who are in the course of their daily work called on to contribute even more at Christmas time but also those many, many thousands of volunteers who on Christmas Day will be seeking to make Christmas a gentler day, a day of companionship and a day of joy instead of a day of loneliness for the many Australians who do not have a family, who do not have the financial means to celebrate in the way that they would wish to, who do not have the ability to give Christmas presents to their children or who do not have the finances to join their families on the other side of the country or the other side of the world.
I hope that on Christmas Day, if we are not volunteering ourselves in this way, we are able to think about those many, many thousands of Australians who are doing so—people who will serve lunch at the Wayside Chapel, people who will serve lunch with Bill Crews at the Exodus Foundation or, in the community I grew up in, for the many hundreds of people now who go to St Patrick's at Sutherland for Christmas lunch to spend it together, the people who will serve lunch to make sure that people have a decent meal but, more importantly, some company on that very special day.
At these times of reflection, we consider our responsibility to the Australian community and we ask ourselves: what have we achieved? One of the things that comes most strongly to mind for me and tinges this reflection with sadness is the idea that all civilised communities are judged not by what we do for our strongest, by giving more to those who already have much, but by what we do for our poorest, our weakest and our most needy members of the community. I noted that the previous government speakers were reflecting on their year of achievement, and I just add a few things that I have been reflecting on in this year: the $400 million cut from public dental services; the $44 million cut from the new build in homelessness services, so no new homelessness services built; increasing costs of medicines; decreasing pensions; and cuts to family payments. In the year of reflection, perhaps we need to reflect also on what we have done for Australia's neediest people.
It is also a reflection that strikes me when I think of my own shadow portfolio of foreign affairs and international development. We have seen in this portfolio this year some real difficulties. I hear the Leader of the House saying that this is not the purpose of this discussion, and I would remind him that the Prime Minister covered all of these issues in his valedictory speech.
Just concentrate on your speech and don't lecture me.
We do not need banter across the table.
I was not interjecting. The Deputy Leader decided to overhear my conversation.
The Deputy Leader has the call.
I think about the disappearance of MH370, the continued search for that plane and for the bodies lost and never recovered, for MH17 and the Australian lives lost in that terrible tragedy, the 300 souls who went down in that flight, and the crash site investigation that continues in the most difficult circumstances, where separatists continue to make it difficult for international investigation crews to have access to site. I think about the conflict in Syria with more than three million refugees now living in neighbouring countries and more than six million internally displaced facing winter with no food and no shelter. The World Food Program has had to stop giving vouchers for the month of December. That tiny amount of money that refugees were getting from the world food program was not able to be distributed this month. I think, of course, about the 200,000 people who have died in this conflict so far. I think about the rise of Islamic State and what it means for the Middle East and what it means for our world.
When I speak of these conflicts in the Middle East, I want to think, particularly at this time of year, of our defence personnel who will be serving at this difficult time away from their families, missing their partners and children, but are there for the very good reason of protecting the lives of civilians in the most brutal circumstances. Of course, I refer not just the defence personnel who are serving in the Middle East but those who are serving around the world.
I think of the rebuilding of Gaza, which continues now after the difficulties experienced there this year, and the terrible tragedy that you see in many African nations, the kidnapping of schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Nigeria, which really sparked something in the international community and yet is just one example of the terribly brutality that many people in Nigeria and neighbouring countries are facing, and the Ebola crisis, which has already claimed 5,500 lives.
On the other hand, we have had some terrific successes internationally. I am proud, as the Prime Minister said, of the way that Australia showed itself during the G20 meeting to countries around the world as a developed, sophisticated nation with a developed, sophisticated Brisbane on show for all. I want to congratulate Prime Minister Gillard, Prime Minister Rudd, and Treasurer Wayne Swan for bringing the G20 meeting to Brisbane when they did and for elevating the G20 to the body that it is.
At this time of year, I also want to say a few words about our press gallery friends—those who cover us so enthusiastically in good times and in bad, those at the ABC who have lost their jobs this year, and in particular spare a thought for Peter Greste and his family, a man jailed simply for doing his job, the job that so many in our press gallery do every day, so unjustly detained in Egypt.
Previous speakers have gone through a very comprehensive list of those we should thank in the parliament. So I will do this very quickly: our Clerk, David Elder, and his staff; all of our parliamentary staff; the cleaners Anna, Joy, Maria, Lutzia; the gardeners; the library staff; the Serjeant-at-Arms, Bronwyn Notzon, and her staff; all of our attendants led so ably by Luch; our Hansard staff; parliamentary security staff; the AFP; our wonderful friends at Aussies, who know all our names—incredible; the staff cafeteria; Comcar drivers and travel booking staff—I think I probably spend more time talking to Comcar drivers than I do my own family some weeks, and I always enjoy their company very much. To my colleagues on this side, I want to say that it has been a year of remarkable discipline, cohesion, goodwill and friendship. I want to thank all of you for the support that you have shown Bill Shorten and me. I want to thank Bill for being such a wonderful leader to work with, and his family, Chloe, Georgette, Rupert and Clementine. I wish them a wonderful Christmas, and I am sure that they will be happy to have Bill home a little bit more often than usual. Tony Burke, Penny Wong, Stephen Conroy and the other members of the leadership team, it has been wonderful to work with them, and I wish them and their families a very merry Christmas. I also want to say that all of us rely phenomenally on our staff. This year I am losing a longstanding staff member in Jill Lay, but I have been served exceptionally well by my staff, all of them in the shadow ministerial office and the electorate office. I know that all members of parliament join me in wishing a happy Christmas to their staff and thanking them for their work this year.
All of us are here because we get permission from two groups of people. We get permission from our electorate and they vote for us every three years. They put their faith in us to come and represent their best interests in this parliament. I want to thank all of the community organisations and individual constituents of my electorate who care so passionately about their nation and who contact me a lot to tell me about how they believe we should change our nation for the better. I thank them for their ongoing faith and trust in me—my Labor Party branch members, community groups, schools and others who make that work possible. I want also to thank my family and our families. We choose public life, and we are very lucky if we have partners who support that choice. It is often harder on families than it is on us. They bear the criticisms much more acutely than we do and, for those of us who have kids, I hope our kids miss us as much as we miss them—it is not an easy life for a family to choose. Again, on behalf of all of us, I want to thank our families and wish all on this side and on that side a happy Christmas and New Year.
It is a great pleasure to follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the valedictory, which is my favourite time of the year in the chamber. It is a great opportunity to thank the people who make this place run—you chief amongst them, Madam Speaker, in the chair, with your staff and all the people associated with the parliament. The valedictory is an opportunity to thank people, to talk briefly about the end of the year and to wish everybody a very safe and happy Christmas holiday period. I will not use it as an opportunity to make a ministerial statement.
I would like to start by thanking my colleagues particularly for being so forbearing of the long sitting hours and the changing schedule that is sometimes forced upon us by arrangements in the Senate which come back to us at all hours of the day and in all manner of ways. I think both the government and the opposition understand that sometimes the House of Representatives is the handmaiden of the Senate, as we are today. The forbearance that all of our colleagues show with a changing schedule is something that is not new to the parliament—this is my 22nd year in the parliament—and it has been this way every year, and this year is no different. I would like to thank my colleagues. I would like to thank them for being enthusiastic about coming to parliament every day and about question time—submitting questions and being part of the process.
I would like to thank my counterpart, the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, for his enthusiasm in holding the government to account in the nicest possible way. In fact, the other member at the table today, the member for Chifley, is very enthusiastic in question time, when he is here and has not been thrown out or taking extended holidays. It is important for the good working of the parliament for the government to have a vibrant opposition. When we were in opposition, both of us were at the spear tip of the opposition in holding the government to account. It is a very important part of the democratic process. Those countries that have a robust opposition have generally got good government because of it; and in those countries that do not often the government gets sloppy; and in some countries, even worse, it gets corrupt. I would like to thank the Manager of Opposition Business and the opposition for the role that they play in making our parliament the exciting, very productive and constructive place that it often is.
Without the clerks, led by David Elder, we would not be able to look as good as we sometimes do. There are times when we get things wrong and that is because we do not take the Clerk's advice. When we stop to take the Clerk's advice, we usually get things right. I would like to thank David Elder and his team. Claressa—whom I have known for a very long time; she was the secretary of one of the committee's when I was chairman many years ago—Claressa Surtees is the new Deputy Clerk. What a great job they, and all the people associated with them, do. I would like to thank the Serjeant-at-Arms for the work that Bronwyn Notzon and all her attendants do. In spite of the fact that Luch is probably the most well-known attendant in the building, he is not actually the leader of the Serjeant-at-Arms Office. The Serjeant-at-Arms might need to put him on a tighter leash sometimes. We do very much enjoy our relationship with the attendants.
In making those comments, I should say we enjoy our relationship with all the people who work in the building. They are essentially completely bipartisan. I am sure they have their own private views about who they want to be in government, but in serving us I have never had an experience that has not been a good experience—whether it is the cleaners or the Comcar drivers. Many of the drivers become like family after you have been in this place for a long time; they know where you want to go; they know how to get you home; they take care of you; they rush you to the airport if you are running late; sometimes they are part of the family; they are absolutely marvellous. Then there are the people who organise our travel, the attendants in the chamber, the security guards within the building, the Australian Federal Police who are now both within and without the building. This place is quite a hive of activity when parliament is sitting; I think up to 10,000 people are in this building at that time and they are all working to make our great democracy—and it is a great democracy—work as well as it possibly can.
Sometimes we forget that we are the 12th largest economy in the world. We have had the same system of government since 1901; and there are very few countries—I think about four—that are in the position of having had a democratic government since 1901. We sometimes undersell our greatness as a nation, but we are the envy of the world. I do like to thank all those people in this building who make us look as good as we do and make the democracy work. The librarians—I still like to ring the library myself when I want something and I am not absolutely sure that my staff will necessarily be able to put it in the words I want it. It does sometimes surprise the librarians to hear my voice on the end of the phone, but my view is that we need to stay in touch with the people who make this place work. Whether it is the Table Office, the Parliamentary Liaison Office, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, led by Peter Quiggin—they are all vitally important to our success.
I would also like to thank my team, the team on this side of the House, the Leader of the House's office—my marvellous staff, led by Meredith Jackson, who is my chief of staff. There is also John Bathgate, who is not in the chamber but who is the adviser who organises the parliament. There is his counterpart, Ewan Kelly, from the Manager of Opposition Business's office, about whom I am told, 'We always know where the opposition stands; they are very straightforward.' I think that is a great way to be in this business. We often disagree. We have robust debate. But the Manager of Opposition Business's office and my office have an understanding that this place can only work if people are straightforward about their intentions. So I would also like to thank Ewan Kelly and John Bathgate.
I would like to thank Luke Hartsuyker, the Deputy Leader of the House, for the good work that he does on behalf of the National Party and on behalf of the coalition. I would like to thank the whips and the whips office—the member for Berowra, the member for Forrest and the member for Wright, Scotty Buchholz, on the government side and, indeed, the chief whip on opposition side, the member for Fowler. They all work closely together, too, to make this place work. I think the public do not realise, Madam Speaker, how much goes on within the building that is of a bipartisan nature to make sure that the place works well. So I would like to thank them as well.
I would also like to thank the Speaker's panel, the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker, I even thank the Second Deputy Speaker! Hopefully, in future, he will leave his phone in his office when he is sitting in the chair in this chamber. I would like to thank Talethia andDamien from the member for Watson's office. They have a close relationship with my office and, I am sure, with the opposition members as well in making this place work.
I would like to thank a couple of particular people. I would like to thank the Prime Minister, because it is a great privilege to be a cabinet minister in a government, in a country like Australia. It is a great privilege. The member for Watson has had that privilege and maybe the member for Chifley, if he behaves himself, might have that privilege one day in about 20 years—perhaps when the Wyatt Roy-led opposition will have to face off against the member for Chifley. It is a great privilege. You only get that privilege on this side of the House if the Prime Minister chooses you to have it, and so I would like to thank him.
It is a great privilege to be the Leader of the House. I do love the parliament, Madam Speaker, as I know you do as well. I think it is an important part of our democracy. I like knowing about it, I like studying it, I like being in it and I like speaking in it. And I do thank my electors of Sturt—my long-suffering electors—who have for 22 years continued to re-elect me in this place eight times—and sometimes it has been closer than others; I hope that does not happen again. Nevertheless, I have survived all this time because of their forbearance and because they believe in the philosophy of the party that we represent and also, hopefully, that I can do the job for them here in Canberra that they want me to do. I would like to thank the Prime Minister's office—people like Andrew Hirst, David Whitrow, Peta Credlin and Dave Hughes. They are all part of the team that is this government, that makes the parliament operate and that makes question time and the legislative agenda work smoothly. Without them, it would not be possible.
In closing, I would like to thank my family. My family are part of the Pyne team. I chose to go into politics when I was 24, but then I was married and all my children were born after that time. So the relationship they have with politics is one of being organically part of it. They are part of 'Team Pyne'. They shared my disappointment this week when my bill was defeated in the Senate. They are a marvellous group of people. There are four of them: Barnaby, Eleanor, Felix and Aurelia. My wife Carolyn keeps the whole show on the road. I am very much looking forward to spending time with them over Christmas and summer.
It has been a busy year, but I would say that the first full year of the 44th Parliament has been a hell of a lot better than any of the years of the 43rd Parliament—not just because we are in government, although that is part of it. They were gruelling years, and I am glad they are over. I think the member for Grayndler and I are both glad that they are over.
At the end of the first full year of the coalition government, I would like to wish all of my colleagues, even the ones whom I sometimes disagree with, a very happy Christmas and a safe Christmas. I hope they have a terrific holiday over summer, because we will be back at it in February, with the same gusto, hopefully, that we have enjoyed this year.
There is often from commentators a fair bit of cynicism about these speeches at the end of the year, where people misread them and think the fact that we say nice things about each other and then go back into debate with a fair bit of passion is somehow a contradiction; it is not. As you have said yourself, Madam Speaker, on many occasions: it is right and proper in this place that when we argue, we argue hard. We have pretty much as many different views as exist in our nation within this building. They all seem to find their way in here, one way or the other. And it is right and proper that there is a debate where people passionately bring that to a head. It does not change the fact that we genuinely wish each other well at a personal level and it does not change the fact that the speeches which are given today are given in good faith—notwithstanding what might happen and is probably very likely to happen in this room only a couple of hours from now.
Madam Speaker, 2014 is your first year as Speaker and my first full calendar year as Manager of Opposition Business. I think we have both worked very hard on each other's profile this year, and with a good deal of success. What people will not be aware of, though, for all the battles we have had on procedure at different times is that when it comes to a personal level—and in various ways many people would know this has been a particularly difficult year for me in some ways—that none of that has ever translated to the arguments here, within the chamber. The genuine good will you have shown outside of the chamber has been appreciated, not only by me but by all members in various ways. I have said that privately; it is important to say that publicly as well. The member for Chifley, I know, does recommend the introduction of a video referee in parliament. As the patron of the Canterbury Bulldogs, having had to put up with everyone cheering for South Sydney during the year, I found it does not really make that much difference whether we have a video referee or not. I would love to back in the member for Chifley but find myself unable to do so.
I acknowledge the work of all the presiding officers—the Deputy Speaker, the Second Deputy Speaker and the other members of the Speaker's panel. With the Leader of the House, I appreciate the recognition that he has given to my office and, in particular, to Ewan Kelly. I return the acknowledgement to John Bathgate for the work that comes from the Leader of the House's office. There are many times when we do not let each other know what we are doing; but, when we do, it is always straight and it has always been honoured. If there has been a moment when someone from either side has started to broach the breaking of one of those agreements, it has been fixed relatively quickly, which I think is important.
I should add that the Leader of the House is alone among the members of this House who I have thought of in terms of what I should buy him for Christmas. There is a reason for this. Many who watch the talking pictures segment of Insiders would be aware of the work of Mike Bowers. He is not allowed to take the photographs in the Senate during divisions that he is able to take here. To our credit, under the new parliament, we got rid of the satire rules and freed things up a lot. The parliament has been the better for it. The Senate has not made all of those same changes. Mike Bowers has had to resort to building a Lego model of the Senate.
He is currently building a Lego model of the House. In order to be of assistance, I understand that members are allowed, if they provide their own Lego piece, to choose who they will be in the new House of Representatives. For myself, I decided Han Solo was about as flattering as a Lego figure could be. I have found for the Leader of the House a police officer character where you can choose a happy face or a grumpy face. I have chosen the grumpy face at the moment. Madam Speaker thankfully has not noted that they are both sitting on the front bench over there at the moment, side-by-side. They will be finding their way across to Mike Bowers to be part of the chamber that he is building.
The work that is done by the whips and their teams on both sides in keeping parliament working is impressive and has a similar relationship of honesty and trust to the way the parliament works with the Leader of the House and myself. I want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the House refers to the challenges that people would feel over the previous parliament, certainly there has been an extraordinary level of unity that we have found on my side of politics that we were not blessed with the same way for much of our period on the government benches. I want to acknowledge the work of Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek in building that unity. I should probably also acknowledge those opposite. At times, they have helped with the unity of our side as well, in a fairly direct way! I would also acknowledge my deputy in this role, the member for Isaacs.
Of course, it is impossible to give one of these speeches without acknowledging the role of the clerks. It is interesting that the people who are listening in probably have no understanding at all of why the praise is so strong. But the work of David Elder, Claressa Surtees and the Serjeant-at-Arms, Bronwyn Notzon, is extraordinary, honest and trusted. I think the clerks are probably the only section of the Commonwealth government and any of its institutions that has never leaked and they probably have the best stories to tell. It is a real tribute to their professionalism. I thank the attendants, the Hansard staff, the Parliamentary Library, everyone at Aussies, the COMCAR staff and the wonderful cleaners.
I will simply add to the words that have been said on a number of occasions already about our personal staff. My personal staff, to my surprise, have turned up in the House for this. I am grateful to see them all there. There are many times away from home when your personal staff are your only point of trusted reference at different moments. They are right there on the best and worst days when we are here. I want to acknowledge the role my personal staff have played. I also want to acknowledge a thought that was given last night by the Leader of the Opposition at another function. He also acknowledged that we always talk about our family life and the pressure on them. Many of our staff have very, very similar pressures and extended times away from home. It is important that we be mindful of that as well.
There is a new group that has found its way into participating in the work of the parliament that we never used to have to acknowledge, because they did not exist. I do think it is worth acknowledging the change that we have had with social media. It has now been an extraordinary way for members of the public to participate, to comment, to cheer, to scream and to have every sort of reaction in a way that reaches quite personally to each and every one of us. The power of that, if it was ever seen, was seen by the simple action not long ago of Paul Taylor with a cricket bat. We now have a world where we do not only go via the media in order to get messages out. The acts of an individual citizen can inspire a nation and can find their way all the way around the world. In that, I acknowledge that it is a difficult year for many in the media. The job losses have continued to be a challenge for many people there and it is always felt when people are seeing the job at risk, even though no-one is arguing that they have done anything but the best professional work.
In conclusion, in acknowledging my electorate, I am obviously grateful for the opportunity to be here. But there is also an interesting thing that I have always seen in my part of Sydney, being not just a multicultural but a multi-religious community. Australia, thankfully, has never gone down the path of the United States when it comes to trying to make sure that we do not offend any religion by pretending to celebrate nothing. I have never understood why the United States ended up with the key phrase only being 'happy holidays', even though for each different faith there are celebrations that are happening at different times that have a much deeper meaning. But if what someone is celebrating is a holiday, then by all means it is the appropriate term.
But just as my friends and people in my electorate will wish me a happy Eid and just as colleagues within the parliament will wish me a happy Hanukkah, I hope we never stop short of being willing to offer a sincere wish when it is something that we believe passionately in and something that we hold dear. I will extend quite directly and honestly, in that same spirit, all the best for a merry Christmas.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. Some months before the 2013 election, the coalition released our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. This policy is all about lifting real wages, increasing productivity, making Australian businesses more competitive and, most importantly of all, generating more jobs. Our government is doing everything to encourage businesses to grow so they can employ more people—something which is of particular importance in my electorate of Corangamite.
Just in the last few months, we have seen some outstanding results in job creation generated by our government in partnership with the previous Napthine government under the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, a fund in conjunction with Alcoa and Ford, which is driving already in excess of 750 new jobs. This is a great result for our region, particularly in the growth sectors in advanced manufacturing, in food processing and also in agriculture. A couple of weeks ago, there was a wonderful announcement that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is moving, in part, to Geelong, establishing a centre of excellence. This was one of the recommendations made by the Victorian economic review panel, which was looking into the Victorian economy in the wake of the closure of car manufacturing. One part of the ABS moving to Geelong is a really wonderful initiative, as it decentralises and invests in our wonderful city. The other thing that I keep talking about in terms of job creation—it is all about jobs and infrastructure—is that, just this week, there was fantastic news for the people of Corangamite with the news that the NBN is being rolled out to 34,000 premises across Corangamite in areas most in need of quicker broadband, across the Surf Coast and across the Bellarine. These are just a couple of examples of our very strong focus on jobs and infrastructure.
Our government's aspiration is to bring industrial relations back to the sensible centre, where the rights of employees are balanced with the rights of employers for the sake of jobs and productivity. I wish at this point to remind members what happens when our industrial relations system is out of balance. We have seen some fairly unfortunate examples in my region, the Geelong and Corangamite region, where improper and unlawful union conduct stifles jobs, productivity and business confidence. Perhaps the best example of that is what happened on the Regional Rail Link worksite, when the conduct of the CFMEU—which can only be described as terribly unlawful to the point where there was very strong action taken by the courts—shut down that site. It caused so much distress, particularly for Boral. The Supreme Court made orders against the unlawful protesting by the CFMEU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Boral was effectively shut out. The CEO of Boral gave some evidence in the royal commission and basically said that this amounted to blackmail. It cost the company $10 million, and he described it as a criminal conspiracy, which really amounted to a situation where Boral was shut out of getting other important work. It is a terrible reflection on the CFMEU and on what happens when extremist, unlawful union conduct invades the workplace. This is the same CFMEU that so heavily backed Labor in the Victorian state election and that is helping to drive up construction costs in Victoria by an average of 30 per cent more than any other state. Throughout all this time, through a prism of the CFMEU donating millions of dollars to Labor, we have had deathly silence from the Labor Party on the unlawful, extreme, thuggish conduct of the CFMEU. Here was Boral, a supplier to Grocon, an innocent party, being shut out of work, and the costs and impacts were profound. As the member for Wannon has raised in his contribution, in this debate today there are two very different positions. There is the one taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 report last night, where he talks about the importance of productivity, and the one here in the House today, where Labor is in denial over the importance of productivity.
As we have heard, the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill before the House implements the final tranche of the government's amendments to the Fair Work Act that were clearly outlined in our policy, and it makes a number of important improvements to the process of bargaining but, importantly, retains employee protections and also employee rights. These changes do not reduce rights; they simply ensure transparency around existing rights. I want to briefly go through each of the main changes. The first one is all about putting productivity back on the agenda by requiring parties to at least discuss improvements to productivity during negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. There is no requirement that productivity be an outcome in terms of any changes to an EBA. There is no requirement that the parties reach agreement on productivity. The only requirement is that it be discussed. Here we have members opposite objecting to this. Incredibly, the member for Bendigo, in her contribution, even said, 'This is not about productivity. This bill is not about productivity.' The kindest thing I can say about her contribution is that she clearly has not read the bill. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition on television last night talking about the importance of productivity for jobs and for growth for this nation, when our government is so focused on building productivity and growing jobs, and we have members opposite blocking such an important part of our industrial relations regime. All we are saying and all we are requiring in the bargaining process is that productivity be discussed. The Leader of the Opposition last night had no problem with that, and, now, in an act of what I can only describe as hypocrisy, we are seeing a very different position.
A second element of our bill is that unions and employees do not use industrial action as a tool of first resort. They must ensure that they have at least attempted to engage in meaningful discussions with the employer before resorting to industrial action. I remind the House that the Fair Work Commission will continue to be at the centre of the industrial action processes. Employees will still have a right to take protected action as part of their bargaining for enterprise agreements. Authorising the ballots to take industrial action will remain the responsibility of the independent Fair Work Commission. So what we are seeing is more transparency for an existing right.
This bill will require a union applying for industrial action to provide the commission with information on the steps the union has taken in negotiating the new agreement, whether the union has told the employer specifically what the employees are seeking in the negotiations—it is common courtesy, frankly—whether the union has responded to employer offers or counter proposals; and generally how far negotiations have progressed. These items are based on a leading decision of the Fair Work Commission on what are relevant considerations the commission should look to before authorising an industrial action ballot. Really, by including these items in a list in the legislation we are seeking to ensure that there is a consistent decision-making approach by the commission and its various members.
The other element of this bill is to ensure that claims, in support of which industrial action is being taken, are not unrealistic or implausible. We recognise, of course, that industrial action is an important employee right. It is a right, however, that must be exercised responsibly rather than capriciously. So the bill gives the independent commission the express power to refuse to authorise an industrial action ballot if the commission is satisfied that the claims over which the unions wishes to take industrial action are manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on productivity.
Currently one of the big issues with the Fair Work Act is that it allows for industrial action to be taken in pursuit of almost any bargaining claim, no matter how extreme, no matter how unrealistic and no matter how unreasonable. I just want to draw on one recent example of reports of protected action ballot orders made in relation to claims by marine engineers in Port Hedland, where they were seeking a pay increase of 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees only work for six months of the year, on a week-on, week-off roster. Clearly the claim that was being made was completely excessive—manifestly excessive.
What we are seeking to do in this very important amendment is, again, strike a reasonable balance. We have no issue with industrial action but we have an issue with manifestly excessive claims—extreme claims and claims which are calculated to generate industrial mayhem rather than a sense of industrial equity as part of the bargaining process.
I want to very briefly reflect on the contribution of the member for Griffith, who claimed that the bill undermines the right to strike and undermines the right to bargain collectively. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have made that very, very clear. Nothing could be further from the truth but—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley interjects. I am very disappointed that the member for Chifley has not spoken about the unlawful, thuggish behaviour of the CFMEU and how that has driven down jobs and productivity in my electorate. That has been incredibly disappointing in terms of a very important project, the Regional Rail Link, to which the federal government is contributing $2.9 billion, which is going to be so important for the people of my electorate—the people who live in Geelong and south-west Victoria—connecting with Melbourne.
We have seen that Boral has been shut out in the most terrible of circumstances. And members opposite have said nothing.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley!
They have said absolutely nothing about this, and it is, quite frankly, a disgrace. It is really surprising when you have the Leader of the Opposition claiming how important it is for productivity that we see these changes in the work place yet members opposite oppose this bill.
This is all about striking the sensible centre. This is all about respecting the rights of workers, but it is also about reinforcing how important productivity is to the future of our country. As I mentioned, this bill will meet some important election commitments in addition to some election commitments that we have delivered. We have repealed the carbon and mining taxes. We have stopped the boats. We are building the roads of the 21st century, including the upgrading of the Great Ocean Road—a great project, which Labor opposed. We are duplicating the Princes Highway between Geelong and Colac. And, of course, a number of members are working very hard to campaign for Daniel Andrews to change his mind and reverse his economically reckless commitment to rip up the contracts on the East West Link—perhaps one of the most economically reckless commitments that we have ever seen in the state of Victoria.
Our government is focused on job creation. Jobs and infrastructure in my electorate of Corangamite are so important. This bill is an important part of those reforms and I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise to speak in opposition to this bill. There are a few things in the contribution of the member for Corangamite that need to be responded to. I will start where she finished. She said that this government is all about jobs. The joblessness rate in Victoria is a shame. It is a tragedy and it was a major factor in the change of government in Victoria. If the government wishes to be judged on its record on jobs, let them be judged on that frame.
There were a couple of other things that she said. The member for Corangamite talked at some length at the start and at the end of her contribution about the 'sensible centre' in industrial relations. That is a favourite phrase of the Prime Minister that bears no resemblance whatever to this government's agenda for industrial relations. I note that the policy that related to the bargaining changes that are the subject of this bill did refer to striking a balance. As the member for Corangamite said, that was a balance between the obligations on workers and unions and the obligations on managers. However, as has so often been the case under this government, between the policy that was announced before the election and the policy that is before us and contained in this legislation, there has been a substantial change. The balance has been removed. This is all about focusing on workers and unions, not about managers and their obligations in relation to productivity.
It was very interesting that the member for Corangamite criticised the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Bendigo in terms of their contributions to the productivity aspect of this debate—productivity, of course, being the purported justification for this legislation—but she could not say one word about how the provisions contained in this bill would boost productivity. It simply relies on the innate ideological view of members opposite that our pathway to productivity is by driving wages down, weakening unions and taking away employees' rights. The evidence, frankly, goes the other way. Members opposite should be reminded that labour productivity growth has been consistent over the last 12 quarters—that is, three years. Labour productivity is not at the heart of Australia's productivity challenge and, even if it were, the provisions contained in this bill would do very little to boost labour productivity.
I also note that the member for Corangamite asserted that this legislation maintains employees' rights. If she had been listening to the contribution of the member for Griffith, who is a person who knows quite a bit about this—I would venture, quite a bit more than the member for Corangamite—she would understand that that is simply not the case. What we have in this bill is fundamentally an attack on collectivism and on rights—important rights that go to the heart of pretty fundamental questions that go to power relationships between people who earn their living through a wage and those who employ them.
This bill is also, as I said in my opening comments, a broken promise, which perhaps makes it a fitting end to the year. It is flawed in concept and it is also flawed in execution. Above all else, this is very poorly constructed legislation that may not even serve its own purposes. This bill is a disingenuous, pointless and deeply ideological piece of legislation. It reminds us that this government's commitment to red-tape reduction does not extend to the realm of work. This is a matter, again, of form and substance. At one level, this legislation is all about red tape for the sake of it, in terms of the provisions that go to bargaining and productivity tick-boxes. I will say more on that issue. It is also worth noting in this debate how many times this government has already returned to the legislative whirl in relation to industrial relations, despite having, in effect, committed to not doing so prior to the election.
To those opposite who love to speak of unnecessary legislation, I ask this question: what is the problem that this bill is trying to solve? The explanatory memorandum that comes with it is pretty unhelpful and even obtuse on this point. This is pretty fundamental. What is the evidence, for example, of a wage explosion? I said earlier—
Mr Husic interjecting—
There is none, member for Chifley. You would think that would be a relevant consideration.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Yes, indeed—balance should recognise that. The evidence is that labour productivity growth has been consistent over 12 quarters. It has increased over the last three years. I will speak further on the thinness of the productivity justification as I turn to the provisions of the legislation in detail.
I also think some context is required in this debate. Today, as we speak, work is less and less secure. Some of the attitudes towards the position of wage earners is, frankly, staggering. I saw on the front page of the Australian Financial Review yesterday, in response to some commitments made by the new Victorian government, the suggestion that public servants in Victoria would get free money. The suggestion that underpins this, the ideological position going to the wage share that is fair and proper, is staggering. All of us in this place understand—or we have been told and should have listened—the standard-of-living pressures, the cost-of-living pressures, that our constituents face.
Labor members are up for real engagement on these matters, but to simply suggest that pushing downward pressure on wages by denying workers and their representatives the capacity to bargain fairly is just ludicrous. We are up for broad conversation about productivity and the things that might boost Australia's productivity, about investment in infrastructure and about having a national urban policy that might deal with some of the issues around the depth of our labour markets, for example. We are up for investment in skills and training—the sorts of things that this government is walking away from. We are up for a debate about innovation.
I spoke earlier about this bill being disingenuous, but I wonder if that might have been a generous description. The words of the minister in his second reading speech do not quite reach the heights of his 7.30 Report channelling of Comical Ali earlier this week following the defeat of his higher education reforms in the Senate, but they do sit pretty uncomfortably with provisions that are set out in the bill. He claims implementation of election policy. This is farcical. He is delivering on one side of the debate while denying any meaningful engagement and responsibility of the managerial side. For him to assert, as he does, that this bill will ensure that negotiations for enterprise agreements are harmonious and productive is simply nonsense. At one level—the pointless side of this piece of legislation—the issue is that the requirements are simply token, as Professor Andrew Stewart has advised.
This also goes a broken promise. Before the election, the coalition spoke about the joint responsibilities. In this bill it is all about workers. As the shadow minister said, if they were serious about addressing productivity and bargaining, they could have looked at, for example, amendments to the good-faith bargaining rules that would encourage parties to come together. The unevenness of these provisions is deeply problematic. Once again, this is a government that has given scant regard to the concerns of workers. We see obligations imposed on unions, on one hand, with the prospect of an effective veto, at the very least, and, on the other hand, a strongly enhanced bargaining position for employers.
I am also more than a little troubled by the minister's indication of what he describes as the common sense test. What does this mean? What is common sense? It should be clear to anyone in this place that these debates around industrial relations are deeply contested issues, and they are vital. They go to how most of us earn our living, how most of us see ourselves and how most of us provide for our families. The 'I reckon test' is simply not good enough. It is consistent with the shoddiness of the legislation at large. I think that is why the shadow minister has proposed—and this would be sensible—to seek the views of stakeholders on these issues through a Senate committee process. If the minister feels differently about this, he might advise me and my colleagues via SMS as to his real justification.
There are three substantive components to this bill. Firstly, there is the issue of productivity discussion during bargaining—amendments to section 187(1) of the Fair Work Act—which requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied, before approving an enterprise agreement, that improvements to productivity at the workplace are discussed during the bargaining process. According to the explanatory memorandum, this does not require the parties to agree to terms, nor to include terms in an agreement about improving productivity. Well, what is the point, particularly when productivity is not defined in the proposed amendments, nor is it presently defined in the substantive act? So, I ask myself: what is the point of discussing productivity when it does not go to the enterprise agreement and is not adequately defined by the amendments or the fair work agreement? Again, I harken back to the contribution of the member for Corangamite who talked about productivity but did not go to any of the challenges of boosting productivity, or to consider, other than merely assert, that these changes would somehow magically make things better. In practice what we have is another box to be ticked that adds nothing substantive to the bargaining process. It is more red tape.
You would think the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, would be horrified, or perhaps excited, that he can wrap up this into his bonfire of unnecessary regulation next year. This is an unnecessary process with a slightly sinister undertone that it is clearly introduced to restrict workplace rights. On this point there is also the risk that this provision could be used to manipulate bargaining. An employer could say that it does not want to discuss productivity until it has discussed wages or other conditions. This is a possibility because the amendments, as they are drafted, state that productivity must be discussed during bargaining for the agreement, and that they must be met before the commission can approve an agreement. This may be a risk or this may reflect a failure to understand the process.
I turn also, now, to the question of the protected action changes which are deeply concerning. I refer members to the contribution of the member for Griffith, not just because of the manner in which she clearly set out the concerns she and Labor members have, but because of the depth of her experience in this area. She is someone who should be listened to by people like the member for Corangamite. I think it is deeply concerning to see this claimed implication of productivity as an excuse to hinder the capacity of workers to secure their rights through a protected ballot. This is a very significant right. It is upheld in international instruments to which we are a signatory, and we should, as I have said often in this place in respect of similar matters, mean what we say in relation to these obligations that we assume.
The amendments to section 443(2) state that the Fair Work Commission must not grant a protected action ballot in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if it is satisfied the claims of the applicant are manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on productivity. Clearly these changes would make it harder for a protected action ballot to be granted. The explanatory memorandum says that the requirement may limit access to protected industrial action. Clearly the previous speaker had not familiarised herself with that when she spoke about upholding employee rights. This is a pretty fundamental right for workers. The government, through the explanatory memorandum, has admitted that this places the threshold for protected action higher. This amendment does not only introduce red tape, it ties the hands of workers with it, reshaping, again, the power relationships.
If these amendments were to be read strictly, any industrial action could be construed as impacting productivity. I ask myself the question: where would this leave enterprise bargaining? These amendments, above all else, are poorly drafted and clearly would create significant uncertainty in a vital area of the law. Again, the explanatory memorandum refers to workplace productivity as being a feature of the framework, but all I can see from these amendments is more red tape and, concerningly, fewer rights for workers. I do not see how it can be contested that these things do not equate to workforce productivity, but rather are another assault on hard-working Australians. I would be assisted if government members could explain, or even better, reconsider what they think workplace productivity is.
The third substantive element if this bill, briefly, is contained in amendments to section 443(1A) which represent an attempt by the government to codify the decision of Total Marine Services, but go further than this. The definitional elements of what constitutes 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement' have been around since the early 1990s under the Keating government. This codification fundamentally is unnecessary given that the commission does not disregard the factors referred to in the new section. Here we have, again, the government seeking to introduce additional requirements not just to codify the case law as these requirements, unsurprisingly, place additional burdens on unions. No such burden is placed on employers;—far from the balance asserted by the previous speaker—it is placed only on workers through their unions. So, these amendments are a clear broken election commitment.
This government seems to be, through this legislation, doing its best to make workplace laws, at best, ambiguous and uncertain but also attacking workers and their rights. So, I am pleased to stand with the shadow minister and other Labor members in opposing this bill and in welcoming, contrary to what the member for Corangamite said, a real conversation, a real debate, about this bill, a real debate about workplace productivity and about productivity more generally. A Senate committee would provide an opportunity for that debate. These issues are vital. They are vital for the economy and they are also vital for our society. Important, indeed, fundamental rights and vital interests are at stake here.
This is a piece of legislation that was flawed in concept and is flawed in execution. The House should not pass this bill.
The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 is in line with the coalition's policy to improve the fair work laws. This government is continuing to deliver on its promise to improve the fair work legislation that we currently have in this country. Specifically, this bill seeks to ensure that due process is followed when negotiations for pay increases take place. We want to see an end to Labor's strike-first-talk-later policy. We want to legislatively determine the steps that need to be taken prior to the Fair Work Commission deciding whether an applicant for a protected action ballot order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. We also want to see an end to the games—where the he-said-she-said stuff is stopped—and make sure that records of the required steps are kept. We also want to require that anyone requesting a pay rise displays evidence of increased productivity.
This amendment bill protects the employee by ensuring that due steps are being followed during the negotiation process. It also protects the employer from being held to ransom by industrial terrorism and avoids the strike-first-bargain-later approach so often used by the unions. Ensuring that due process is followed is fairer on the mum-and-dad employees and the mum-and-dad business owners of Australia, particularly in the electorate of Canning that I represent. The amendment bill specifically outlines what is required by both parties and removes any ambiguity of process. This bill also directly complements the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 which ensures protected industrial action cannot take place until bargaining has commenced. Currently, legislation allows industrial action to be taken during the early stages of negotiation, often resulting in a stand-off and stymieing any communications aimed at achieving a resolution. The coalition believes that this is not right. In fact, it is wrong. We are making it easier; we are making it simpler—and we are taking a common-sense approach to this legislation.
On the issue of productivity, I refer to my colleague the member for Hume's contribution to this House. In the Australian Financial Review on 1 December, he wrote an editorial piece called 'Productivity is a worker's best friend'. I am pleased to see the member for Fraser at the desk, because in his contribution today—whether the member for Fraser knows it or not—the member for Hume cited the member for Fraser's academic research in giving his reasons why this bill should be supported. I note that the member for Fraser is not on the speakers list. I wonder if that is because the research he had done previously would conflict with the Labor Party's position today? I note with interest that he is not speaking on this bill, because he might have to argue against the research he did as an academic—which supports the main tenets of this bill. We know that the member for Fraser is a highly intellectual person—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Order!
and we know of his academic record. We also know that the member for Hume is a Rhodes scholar. So let us not have an argument about who has got the kilo brain here. Both of them are well placed to have a say. At the end of the day, the member for Hume, both in his article that I referred to and in his contribution today, made it very clear that productivity is the worker's best friend. He pointed to where the member for Fraser had done research on wage cases in Western Australia, my home state, which justified his argument that productivity adds to wage increases and lowers youth unemployment.
The 'Peel Away the Mask' article, which was first produced in 2001—and has since been revised—and which reflects the unemployment situation in the Peel area of my electorate in Canning, has a lot to say about youth unemployment in the Peel region. Youth unemployment in the Peel region is quite serious because it is always above the national and state average. A lot of this is to do with the exact thing that we are talking about today: young people getting a job where they can actually grow their wages and conditions.
Every member opposite—and we know why they are in here—has to belong to a union. You cannot be a member of the Labor Party unless you are a member of a union. As soon as you talk about productivity or flexibility, the first thing those opposite do is to start going on about Work Choices or taking away workers' entitlements or making sure that they get less.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Order!
I do note that the member for Perth is not even on the speakers list. If she could get herself on the list and have a go, it would be far more effective than just yelling interjections. If the member for Fraser put himself on the list as well, we could see him try and counter the argument that the member for Hume put—based on the member for Fraser's own research.
Youth unemployment is something that is of concern to everybody in this country, but you cannot increase youth participation unless you improve productivity. As soon as you say 'productivity', those opposite will say that it is an excuse for lowering workers' terms and conditions. It is not, because the whole basis of productivity is doing something smarter and more efficiently. Let us use a very simple example so people can absorb it. If you are an old-fashioned farmer and you have a horse and a plough, you are not going to be very productive. If you are old-fashioned farmer and you have two horses and a plough with some wheels on it, you will be more productive. If you are an old farmer and you have an old Fordson tractor, you are going to cover a lot more ground.
It is all about using innovation and technology to be more productive, and this is what this bill today is about. It is to encourage workers, before seeking a pay rise, to talk about what is on offer. We are not talking about quite reasonable pay rises in terms of CPI. Just because somebody has put up an ambit claim, you cannot expect an employer, a mum-and-dad employer who is trying to run a business with half a dozen people, to say, 'Oh, yeah, you can have everything you have asked for.' It just does not work like that. You would send those businesses broke. In fact, you would put young people in particular out of work, because you would price them out of a job. At the end of the day, productivity is the keynote to growth in this country and it is the hallmark of anything that we want to do to address Australia's debt.
The reason that those opposite oppose this is that they are told to oppose it by their union bosses. I will give you an example. The train drivers in the Pilbara, who essentially only work six months of the year, are on something likes $300,000—for working six months of the year. Have a guess what is happening—companies like Rio and BHP are now putting in driverless trains because those drivers have priced themselves out of the market. I say to those opposite: if you are going to be sensible about this, think about what you can bring to the business.
Earlier I heard one of the members over there—the member for Bendigo, I think—saying: 'All they want to do is make people work harder.' They do not want to make people work harder; they want to make them work smarter. If you work smarter, you can do more in the same period of time. That is Australia's unbelievable advantage in the region.
I will quote from the member for Hume's article of 1 December:
… targeted innovation will add to productivity across labour and capital, particularly in government services. Whether it is applying new IT technologies, establishing new management practices or simple measures to increase workplace flexibility … innovation is the cheapest lunch of all.
So I say: this whole bill is based on the fact that, yes, bargaining and all the things we have talked about are very important, as long as they get those steps right, but the real key to this legislation is: yes, wages can be increased, as long as you can be productive.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott once told this parliament:
The Australian people want a government that is competent and trustworthy. The test of a trustworthy government is: does it keep its commitments?
Far from keeping its commitments, this government has told more tall tales than Herodotus—but, unlike that great Greek liar, it only took a few months, not centuries, for this government's dishonesty to become powerfully obvious.
The government promised it would shed 12,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service. That would have been bad enough, but it turns out to have been a ruse. They are cutting 16,500 jobs—4,500 more jobs lost—and not a peep from Senator Seselja, I might add.
And then there was the promise that none of those job cuts would come through forced redundancies. The Prime Minister looked public servants in the eye and told them, 'I really want to stress that we are not talking about forced redundancies. We are talking about not replacing everyone who leaves, that's all.' That promise has been broken several times over, starting with over 44 sackings at Treasury and 75 staff from the Australian Valuation Office, and I do not doubt there will be more to come.
This government has broken its promise of a surplus in every year by doubling the deficit. It has broken its promise of 'no cuts to health or education', with $80 billion of cuts to health and education. It has broken its promise on a 25 megabits per second NBN by 2016, and broken its promise not to cut the ABC and SBS—maybe because ABC Fact Check has just added four new broken promises to their broken promise tracker. He denies his broken promises, which reminds you of Tennessee Williams: 'The only thing worse than a liar is a liar who is also a hypocrite.'
I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of the outstanding success of the Tugun Lights Up event on the southern Gold Coast recently. Tugun Lights Up is a community event which literally lights up the central village area of Tugun for Christmas. Supported by the Tugun Progress Association, it aims to celebrate Christmas, support local businesses and bring community together, and last Saturday they did just that.
Last weekend, Tugun was transformed into a Christmas Wonderland with markets, food stalls, window displays, live music and kids workshops for the Tugun Lights Up event. While official figures are still being tallied, local observers estimate that between 4,000 and 5,000 people turned out for the night, which is an outstanding turnout for such a small community.
The community spirit is clearly well and truly alive on the southern Gold Coast, with the village atmosphere at Tugun making it a unique drawcard for summer celebrations such as this. This event embodies the spirit of the southern Gold Coast, where volunteers passionately work to bring local businesses and all members of the community together, and I was delighted to be able to support this event.
I would like to congratulate Philip Folland and his team of volunteers who went the extra mile to make the event such a success. The Tugun community as a whole should be proud of the collaborative and positive atmosphere which was brightly displayed on Saturday. It is a wonderful event, and I look forward to being part of Tugun Lights Up again in 2015.
On Wednesday, I had the pleasure to meet with 140 grade 5 and grade 6 students from Benalla P-12 College on the final day of their Canberra camp. I was delighted to talk to them about the importance of democracy and the role of this parliament.
I would like to take this opportunity in making this speech to particularly acknowledge the role of the Parliamentary Education Office and the terrific job they do in making visits from students, particularly from my electorate, such a wonderful education and learning experience for them. Thanks, guys; you do a really good job.
Benalla P-12 College was established in January 2013 as a result of four schools merging. It is headed by Principal Barbara O'Brien, who does a fantastic job. The school's vision is to inspire and support students to reach their potential. Yesterday, meeting and talking with teachers and parents Sam, Stefanie, Rick, Brad, Emily, Brooke, Tali, Louise and Ross, reinforced to me how important it is to have a great education locally available in our communities. Well done to Benalla.
I thoroughly enjoyed answering the quality and incisive questions of the students. They were obviously well briefed. They were across their topic. And I know that they are going to make a great leadership contribution to Indi.
Thank you, Benalla P-12 College, for visiting Parliament House, and I look forward to seeing you—staff, students and parents—when I visit the school in the next few weeks. (Time expired)
This nation needs fast broadband, and it is extraordinary that the HFC network passing three million households was going to be ignored by the Labor government and that they were simply going to duplicate more fibre down those same streets. Next week, the federal government I hope will be announcing service agreements to acquire Optus and Telstra's HFC network where, in nearly 20 electorates around the country, over 80 per cent of Australian homes have fibre broadband passing right past their houses, hung from the power lines. Connecting up the other million households will be a big job, but, for the first time, because it is a wholesale network, Australians can keep their old service provider on HFC. Let us talk about the price competition in having multiple retail service providers competing for the lowest broadband services.
Let us talk about the technology. Under DOCSIS 3.1, speeds of over 300 megabits per second—we could never conceive that. But technology will help push up speeds. Those who do not have the cable in my electorate—and that is around half of my electorate—will be waiting on the 18-month plan for fibre to the node. But, on HFC, we will have a work-front moving by the end of next year.
Let us use the assets that this nation has. Let us deliver that high-speed broadband and, by removing the filters from this system, we can have fast upload speeds as well. It was ridiculous to ignore what three million Australian households already had—fibre, right outside their window. Under the coalition, they will be connected.
The Prime Minister does not lie; apparently, he just 'misspeaks'. Well, he made a whopper 'misspeaking' when it came to the renewable energy target. Before the election, he told the people of Australia: 'We remain committed to a renewable energy target.' But, as we know, the renewable energy target was set at 41,000 gigawatt hours. This figure was deliberately set in terms of gigawatt hours, rather than a percentage of energy consumed, as this is the certainty that industry needed to invest billions of dollars into renewable energy. Now the government has tried to cut the figure by 40 per cent—a cut that would not only compromise existing investment and be a massive compromise of sovereign risk but would virtually stop any new commercial-scale projects. Now the minister for industry is spreading the word that he will compromise with a target of 32½ thousand gigawatt hours. That is a poor joke. It is simply not enough to get this 21st century industry rebooted after the Abbott-created stalling and the massive job losses in this sector. Ideally, the Abbott government would honour its election commitment, but that appears to be a bridge too far. But please, give the renewable energy industry and all Australians concerned about climate change a Christmas present and put a decent workable target on the table so we can get this industry back on track in the New Year.
I wish to speak on behalf of the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, or HOIG, and their current struggles now that the APVMA is phasing out the use of fenthion. Throughout the inquiry on the use of fenthion, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, or DAFWA, maintained that an area wide management program, an AWM, was an effective solution to the Mediterranean fruit fly problem in the area, from the maggot to adult fly phase. It is a multipronged approach involving ongoing monitoring of commercial and residential orchards, education of the wider community, as well as an element of compliance enforcement for those who do not follow the protocol.
On 5 November, the Hills growers were informed that DAFWA 'does not have a single cent' to put towards this program. Despite DAFWA imposing a levy of around $200,000 per year on the growers for this kind of contingency and knowing what the likely outcome was going to be from the APVMA, there is no planning in place to assist the Hills orchardists.
DAFWA is now relentlessly driving responsibility for the AWM onto individual producers. It is a completely unreasonable and unjustifiable cost to the growers, who are also left without any legislative authority to implement or enforce compliance. Monitoring is expected to be done by part-time volunteers and two DAFWA employees.
Having worked with the group for an extended period of time, I was deeply disappointed by the APVMA's decision. However, now I am disgusted at the abandonment of the Hills Orchard growers by DAFWA.
There is no cheer in the Prime Minister's Christmas cracker for Australians this year: business confidence, down; unemployment, up; youth unemployment at record highs and full-time unemployment levels in the doldrums. The only index that is looking positive is the index of lies, which is why today we launched this catalogue of infamy: Abbott's book of lies and broken promises.
Order! The member knows that props are not allowed.
It lists the broken promises in health: over $57 billion worth of cuts flying in the face the promise that there would be no cuts to health. It lists the promises that have been broken to pensioners: over $80 a week. And it really beggars belief that today, of all days, the government chooses to introduce the bill which will break that promise to pensioners that there will be no cuts to their pensions. With over $30 billion worth of cuts to schools, over $5 billion of cuts to universities, cuts to the ABC and jacking up fuel prices for people planning their Christmas holidays, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister and the ministers to put some cheer back into Christmas, come into question time today and say they are sorry, and reverse the horrible broken promises to ensure that Australians can go into Christmas with a bit of optimism, knowing they have a government that is worthy of this great country.
It is hard to know where to begin when reflecting on the Abbott government's year of broken promises. Across so many policy areas, we have seen the government cut funding where before the election it said it would not: from the GP co-payment, cuts to the ABC, the fuel excise, cuts to school funding, cuts to hospitals, cuts to higher education, cuts to pensions and cuts to science—the list goes on.
This year I have held community forums, pensioners' forums and university forums. I have held mobile offices and been doorknocking. I have visited businesses, both large and small. I have visited schools, and I have visited universities. The message is clear: Australians do not want this stinker of a budget.
I have spoken to pensioners who will struggle to make ends meet because their pensions have been cut. I have spoken to parents who are worried witless that their children's dreams of attending university are now unaffordable. I have spoken to people with chronic illness, who simply do not know how they will afford the increased costs of GP visits, prescriptions and pathology tests. I have spoken to families who feel cheated by a government that promised to ease cost-of-living pressures but has instead done the opposite. And I have spoken to hundreds of Canberrans who are living in fear of losing their jobs because of the government's cuts to the public services.
The government parades its claims about a year of achievement, and I encourage those opposite to get out into the community, out into the real world, and see how its year of broken promises is affecting every Australian for the worst.
One hundred and sixty years ago yesterday, the tensions on the goldfields in Ballarat erupted, with miners taking up arms against the colonial authorities in the Eureka rebellion. The rebellion has a special connection with my electorate as at that time Government House was within Higgins. The building still exists and is today the Swedish church. It is here that Victorian Governor Hotham heard word of the uprising and received the charter of mining rights from Mr JB Humffray on behalf of the Ballarat Reform League.
The Swedish Church remains the custodian of this living piece of history and yesterday commemorated these events through a visit from representatives of Eureka's Children and the Ballarat Reform League, including the great-grandson of Mr JB Humffray. The Eureka flag was also flown at half-mast.
The Eureka rebellion is regularly interpreted and reinterpreted. At its core it was the flashpoint in an ongoing struggle throughout the mid and latter part of the 19th century for universal suffrage, and in the case of Eureka, adult male suffrage. The rebellion influenced the colonies to use their existing constitutions to expand voting qualifications of electors.
Later in 1902, the Commonwealth parliament granted voting rights to all adult men and women to both Houses of parliament without property qualification. And for female suffrage, it was only the second nation to do so.
The spirit of Eureka is not owned by any sectional group. In a world where many live without political voice the rebellion reminds us, in our still young nation, of the value and preciousness of our democracy and the need, in the rebels' own words, 'to defend our rights and our freedoms'.
Never in Australia's history has there been a worse government than the Abbott government. It is a government that has lied. It is a government that has broken promise after promise after promise. It is a government that has taken government in this country to a new low. Before the election—no cuts to health. Before the election—no cuts to education. Before the election—no cuts to the ABC and SBS. And, before the election, it promised the pensioners of Australia that it would not touch their pensions. Yet today we see, graphically, what it has in store for the pensioners of Australia.
This government is an absolute disgrace. It stands condemned for its lies and broken promises. Each and every day I have constituents ringing my office, emailing me, telling me how disappointed they are with the performance of the Abbott government and how disappointed they are with the lies and broken promises.
The final nail in their coffin is the GP tax, their failure to admit that they are wrong in that area and the introduction of $100,000 degrees. Their changes to education and university fees really condemn them and put a nail in their coffin. (Time expired)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you know, as I do, that truckies carry this nation. Indeed, it was in this context that I was honoured to speak at the White Hill Truck Drivers Memorial last Saturday, in Murray Bridge, to commemorate truckies and those involved in the road transport industry who, sadly, have lost their lives doing this crucially important job.
The life of a truck driver, particularly an interstate truck driver, is marked by long days, great responsibility and a good deal of loneliness where often your best friend is the radio or the CB. It is hard on families both for those in the cab and those who remain at home. Sadly, sometimes the cost of just doing your job is far greater than a person might reasonably expect.
Thankfully, the industry has moved past the days of the cowboys but this is still a dangerous profession and there is no substitute for experience. Many people do not realise that getting 70 tonnes, travelling at 80 kilometres an hour, to stop takes a bit more effort and skill than doing the same in the family sedan.
The White Hill memorial has two sections: the left hand of the wall commemorates those who have died on the job, while the right-hand side is for drivers and others involved in the transport industry who are no longer with us.
I pay tribute to Keith Wood and others involved in the subcommittee for their work in ensuring that the lives of these men and, increasingly, women get the recognition they deserve. This country once rode on the sheep's back. But now this country rides behind the prime mover. May I wish all our truckies safe journeys home.
This has been a year of an unprecedented number of broken promises. It has been Tony Abbott's year of lies. Where do we begin? I may need to ask for an extension of time to be able to list the many, many, many broken promises and the many, many, many lies of this Prime Minister.
Let us start with agriculture. Before the election the government promised that they would invest $100 million in additional funding for rural and regional research and development. What have we seen from this Prime Minister and this government? Not only cuts to R&D and the CSIRO but sackings of scientists who would do this research work that the government promised they would invest in.
Let us go to health. This government said that there would be no cuts to health. On 30 August 2013, the Prime Minister sat with patients in the Bendigo Hospital and promised, 'No cuts to health.' But what do we see from this government? A $57 billion cut from hospitals and $30 million from the hospitals in my electorate alone.
Let us go to education. Education is another area where we have seen nothing but lies and broken promises. This government has cut funding to our universities and schools. This government is based on lies and broken promises. We don't just have a little book of lies of Tony Abbott; we are now developing an encyclopedia—an encyclopedia of broken promises from this government. (Time expired)
I rise to place on the Hansardmy thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, and his wife, Lyn. They have been incredibly supportive of the new people on the backbench. I would like to relay a short story about the Deputy Prime Minister and I certainly wish him a speedy recovery.
As a new backbencher, having only been here for about three months, I received a call from the Deputy Prime Minister to advise me that he would be in Hervey Bay, which is in my electorate, for a week. It was actually a holiday, probably the last time he had one! But that is the type of leader that Warren Truss, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, is. He thought enough of one of his backbenchers to ring them, to let them know that he would in fact be in their electorate, even though it was not on business.
He is a fantastic Leader of the Nationals. He is calm, cool, collected and experienced. He is well needed by our party. I wish him a speedy recovery in his current circumstances.
However, Hervey Bay is the place to go to recuperate. It is a wonderful part of my electorate and I expect everyone in Australia is aware of the great and outstanding values of Hervey Bay, the things that you can see and do. You can walk along the esplanade in the mornings where it is beautiful and cool. You can eat as many Hervey Bay sea scallops as you would like. It is a fantastic region. Not only that, you can duck up to the Bundaberg rum factory and have a look at the tourism that is on offer there. And, right now, it is turtle season at Mon Repos, with the world-famous and renowned loggerhead turtles that nest only there. Come and see them as soon as you can! (Time expired)
As we reflect today on the year of chaos, the year of dysfunction and on the pure number of lies exposed, which have been given by this government, I am led to think that there are few areas that are more—
Mr Deputy Speaker—
Order! The member for Lyons will resume his seat. The member for Adelaide has the call.
As I was saying, there are few areas where lies have been more disgusting than when they betray every young Australian, as they have, when it comes to the issue of school funding. Before the last election there were very clear promises. Those opposite publicly claimed that they were on a unity ticket when it came to school funding. In fact, they said:
You can vote liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.
They had signs at polling booths on election day, saying, 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' But of course that has been exposed as nothing more than an utter deceit of the Australian people. In this year's budget we clearly saw, in black and white, in their own print, that where the current legislation states very clearly that school funding will be indexed at 4.7 per cent, the government in their own budget have said they will index school funding at CPI, which is currently 2½ per cent. This is an utter betrayal of every school in our nation. (Time expired)
This year marks the 25th Anniversary of Landcare. In commemoration of this great milestone, Minister Hunt announced a one-off $5 million grant round, some of which I hope will be awarded to worthy projects in my electorate.
Meanwhile, in my hometown of Katanning, the community was celebrating another auspicious 25th Anniversary, that of Landcare Centre Manager, Jill Richardson, who has given 25 years of dedicated service to the local Landcare movement. Beginning in 1989 as a self-proclaimed 'Landcare widow', Jill chose to join her husband Adrian, a founding member of the Katanning Land Care District Committee. Years of voluntary service keeping books and managing records led to part-time employment in 1998. Since then, Jill has covered every conceivable role within the organisation. Since 2002 she has managed the Katanning Landcare Centre and the Land Care District Committee and forged strong relationships with community based conservation groups, regional natural resource management organisations, state and federal agencies and, of course, private landholders. She has been involved in organising state and national Landcare conferences and most recently, in 2013, in the establishment of the WA Landcare Network, which she now chairs.
Jill's passion for grassroots environmental protection and restoration has remained undiminished over the years, and her infectious enthusiasm makes her the perfect role model for the next generation of Landcare professionals. Her 25-year commitment to assisting land managers to maintain the health of their natural and agricultural environment is to be applauded and celebrated. Thank you, Jill, for your important and ongoing role in the protection and rehabilitation of Australia's precious soil, water and biodiversity assets.
The ACAR funding recipients for aged-care facilities around Australia were announced today. I want to congratulate a number of facilities in my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania. Corumbene, at New Norfolk in the south of Tasmania, received a little over $1 million for capital upgrades for their aged-care facility as well as a number of residential care packages. In the north of Tasmania, in the town of Sheffield, the Tandara aged-care facility, an outstanding facility, received a capital grant of just under $1 million to upgrade that facility to allow more people to spend their final years there. They also received some residential care packages. And the fine facility of Toosey, in the town of Longford in the Northern Midlands in my electorate, received home care packages totalling about $130,000. All in all, over $3 million will go to supporting aged-care facilities around my electorate of Lyons.
It has been a year of lies from the Abbott government—and none more egregious than the promise that there would be no cuts to education. In Queensland, the grade 6s are graduating and they will be going to high school in 2015. What have they got in their future? They have got $4 billion in cuts over the next decade as a consequence of this government's $80 billion cut to education and health in the federal budget, the worst budget in the history of this nation. Queensland schools will be hit by $4 billion. That is what Education Queensland's old modelling says. Of that $4 billion in cuts, $1.66 billion will hit state schools and the balance is going to hit private schools. So regardless of whether you are a public school student or a private school student you are entitled to be angry at the betrayal by this Prime Minister, by the worst government in history and the worst budget in the history of Federation. One of the most egregious lies is that there was a unity ticket on Gonski. There was no unity ticket on Gonski! There was no unity ticket on school funding! You said there would be no cuts to education. The Prime Minister said that the night before the federal election. He would have said anything to get elected—and he did. He should be ashamed.
Those opposite have a shameful record on infrastructure, and nowhere is that more obvious than in their appalling failure to support the critical WestConnex project. We will build WestConnex; they undermined it. They said to the New South Wales government, 'We might give you $1.8 billion to the project in around 2018 but only if you make a whole bunch of changes'—which add $6 billion to the cost. So it was $1.8 billion in five years time in exchange for adding $6 billion in cost to the project. That is an absolutely absurd way of managing infrastructure. We are doing the exact opposite. What we are doing is very sensible. We are putting $1½ billion in cash towards this critical project that will benefit my electorate of Banks and providing a $2 billion concessional loan to the New South Wales government. As a result, WestConnex is happening. This will deliver in spades for the people of south-western Sydney. The M5 East will go from four lanes to 10. If you live in Padstow, Riverwood or Revesby the best engineering estimate is that this will save you more than 20 minutes on your trip to the city during peak hour every morning and afternoon. That is a very big deal for my electorate of Banks. There was an extraordinary failure on infrastructure by those opposite. We know that infrastructure means cranes in the air and workers on the ground—and that is what we are delivering.
Later this afternoon Russell Barton, the host of question time on the ABC, will sign off for the final time. Through the sixties, seventies and eighties there were few national publications that did not display Russell's by-line, but he is best known for his 15 years as the ABCs Parliament House bureau chief. A generation of political reporters owe much to Russell's professionalism and wisdom. In his time, he has seen it all. When we speak of Canberra's great journalists—names like Oakes and Grattan—we should speak of Russell Barton too. He is a living institution for the ABC and for this building. After a remarkable 51 years in journalism, 37 federal budgets and 10 federal elections he will be spending more time on the farm and down the coast—a just reward. Today we farewell Russell from this place, but I have no doubt that he will be tuning in to see us when we return next year on time at two o'clock.
Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This year the government launched an unprecedented attack on fairness. This year the government attacked the living standards of Australian families: a new petrol tax, a GP tax, $100,000 degrees. This year the government is cutting pensions, has cut the real wages of our ADF and is cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals. But isn't the Prime Minister's greatest achievement this year breaking nearly every one of his election promises?
Let's go through the commitments we made.
Opposition members interjecting—
Put those props down. It is so childish. Those props will not surface again, or they will be handed in immediately to the attendants.
Let's just go through the commitments that were made: that we would repeal the carbon tax, that we would stop the boats, that we would build the roads of the 21st century and that we would get the budget back under control.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know this is Thursday, but there will be silence for the Prime Minister's answer.
The carbon tax is gone, but the compensation stays, and every family is $550 a year better off.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield!
The boats have stopped, and that means that hundreds of people are no longer dying at sea. The roads are building, and that means that millions of Australians will not be wasting so many hours of every day and week in traffic jams. And the task of budget repair is well and truly underway. But it is being sabotaged at every turn by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Grayndler and the member for Parramatta!
The Leader of the Opposition is someone who is trashing our country to help himself. That is exactly what he is doing. And it is unworthy of him, it is unworthy of the party he leads, and it is unworthy of great Labor leaders like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating—with whom this side of the parliament had many disagreements, but one thing they would never do is shirk taking the difficult but necessary decisions to give our country the fiscal foundation it enjoyed up until 2007.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on the actions this government has taken to build a stronger future for all Australians?
I thank the member for Solomon for her question.
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide!
Undoubtedly, this has been a year of achievement for our country, and it has been a year of delivery for our government. The G20 was an opportunity to showcase Australia to the world, and I congratulate the people of Brisbane for their work in doing precisely that. But not only did we showcase our country to the world but we actually secured pledges on jobs and growth from the 20 largest economies on the globe, which will work to the benefit of people in this country and everywhere. The three free trade agreements that have been finalised with our largest trading partners will set our country up for the future. That means more jobs and higher growth. It is good for consumers and it is good for our exporters.
As for this government, we are delivering. The carbon tax repeal delivered. The mining tax repeal delivered. Stopping the boats delivered—delivered in spades. The free trade agreements, about which governments have procrastinated for a decade, delivered. There are big new road projects going ahead. The Green Army is deploying around our country, restoring degraded bush and cleaning up polluted waterways.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari!
New Colombo Plan scholars are fanning out through our region. And the National Broadband Network is rolling out—only now on realistic timetables and with a realistic budget.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley!
The great task of budget repair is well and truly underway, notwithstanding constant sabotage from members opposite. And this is not just a matter of ticking boxes; it is about delivering for the people of Australia. The carbon tax repeal means $550 a year in the pockets of the average household. Stopping the boats means that people are no longer dying at sea. New roads mean that people are not wasting hours of their day and their week in traffic jams. Of course there is more to do, but when it comes to some of the most intractable problems our country has faced—the boats and the budget—these problems are now being tackled, with a clarity of purpose and a strength of character that has long been lacking. And we are getting the fundamentals right. Sure, there are challenges, but challenges are things the Australian people always rise to meet.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta!
This has been a year when we have been building the foundations, and next year we will build further on them—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton!
doing what we were elected to do: build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he honestly believe that he would be in the Lodge today if the night before the last election he had been straight with the Australian people and said up-front to them, 'Yes, there will be cuts to education; yes, there will be cuts to health; yes, there will be changes to pensions; yes, there will be changes to the GST; yes, there will be cuts to the ABC and SBS'?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will desist.
On health, on public hospitals, spending is up nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the final year. On schools, spending is up eight per cent this year, eight per cent next year, eight per cent the year after that and six per cent in the final year. And pensions will go up every year, twice a year. And sure—
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence!
There are some quite modest cuts to the ABC. There are some quite modest savings that we are expecting from the ABC. But members opposite seem to think that this is some kind of a fraught moment. Members opposite went into the election saying that the deficit would be $18 billion. It turned out to be $48 billion. What members opposite said was an $18-billion deficit turned out to be $48 billion. That is a $30-billion black hole that members opposite created and tried to cover up. That is exactly what happened. When circumstances change, intelligent governments react accordingly.
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide is warned.
We will restore the budget situation. We will not continue the intergenerational theft that members opposite were guilty of. We will not commit these crimes against our children and grandchildren that members opposite were creating. That is what we were elected to do.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs will withdraw.
I withdraw.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government has laid down strong foundations for future prosperity over the past year?
I thank the honourable member for Leichhardt for his question and recognise that over the last 12 months economic growth in Australia strengthened from 1.9 per cent under Labor in the previous 12 months to 2.7 per cent in the last 12 months. So the economy is strengthening under the coalition. I also recognise that, over the course of this year, job growth has been running at twice the speed—over 12,000 new jobs a month compared to 5,000 new jobs a month under Labor. Of course, there is much more work to be done.
How many since the budget?
The member for Port Adelaide, I remind, has been warned.
I am encouraged by retail trade figures that were released today that indicate that this is the fifth consecutive month of increasing retail trade. We are now seeing retail trade up 0.4 per cent in October, which is a good result and sends a good message about Christmas. This is not an accident. It has come about because we have undertaken the necessary reforms to get the economy going. As the Prime Minister said, we have done everything we can and will do more to ensure that the budget is fixed, the budget is repaired and that every Australian in 10 years time does not end up with a debt left from Labor of $25,000 per person.
At the same time, we have delivered the largest infrastructure package in Australia's history: the equivalent of eight Snowy Mountains schemes to be built in new, additional infrastructure over the next decade. We have facilitated significant state microeconomic reform, and that microeconomic reform means they are redeploying capital from existing state assets into new productive state assets. We got rid of the carbon tax, which cut electricity prices. We got rid of the mining tax, which went on to give incentives back to people who want to invest in mining. We removed $2 billion of red tape—57,000 pages of legislation. We have signed three new free trade agreements. We have abolished 76 different government bodies and boards. We have approved 300 new major projects, going up to a trillion dollars of new investment. We have fixed the problem with employee share schemes. We have dealt with a taxation backlog of 100 announced but undealt-with different tax initiatives.
What is the response of Labor? Bill Shorten is proud of this year. He says, '2014 has been defined by the force of Labor's resistance.' Labor has been resisting everything that we have tried to do to make Australia stronger and better. Labor is actually standing in front of the fireman as we try— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Until there is silence, I will not be calling the member for Ballarat.
Government members interjecting—
In that case, those on my right will also be silent.
My question is of course to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister lie to Australians before the election—
The member will resume her seat. That is totally inappropriate behaviour and the member will leave under 94(a).
I rise on a point of order. I was sitting directly behind the member. I could not hear the question because the microphone was switched off. Can you advise why the microphone was switched off at that time.
Yes—because I asked her to resume her seat, which you can do sequentially.
I am trying to work out what the member for Ballarat was thrown out for.
I think you know.
No, we do not. I have a point of order.
The member will resume his seat. You are not entitled to ask.
We are in a dictatorship here.
I warn the member for Isaacs!
I have a point of order in terms of the form of the question. I am asking whether the form of the question—given the use of the word 'lie', which you have not previously ruled out—is why the member has been expelled. Previously you have ruled that the word 'liar' is unacceptable, but 'lie' you have allowed.
There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of putting the budget on a sustainable path back to surplus?
I thank the honourable member for Calare for that question. The member for Calare knows, as we know, as the Australian people know—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. I heard a chorus coming from the second back row up there, using unparliamentary language—whoever used it. We will have silence. We are not putting up with a wall of noise again.
If we are to deliver an economic action strategy that strengthens the Australian economy and helps us to be more robust in the face of external shocks, it is vitally important that we start to repair the mess left by the previous Labor government, and nothing illustrates that more than the state of the budget. The member for Lilley stood at this dispatch box and pledged to the Australian people that he was delivering four years of surpluses. Labor never delivered a surplus. Labor actually would never have delivered a surplus. That is because they locked in expenditure that kept growing and growing against a revenue base that was never going to meet the target. As a result, we have had to make difficult decisions. We know they are difficult. But they are so vitally important in the medium and long term to ensure that, as a nation, we live within our means.
Labor's legacy, after 10 years, would have been $667 billion of government debt. Seventy per cent of that is owed by the Australian people to people overseas. That is what it means. We have to repay that money with interest, and in 10 years time every Australian born—every child born—would start life with $25,000 of debt as a result of what Labor did in just six years. So now the burden has fallen on us, and we are up to the task. We are determined to fix the budget mess Labor left behind. Whatever the budget numbers, as of today, they would be $43 billion worse as a result of what this Leader of the Opposition has done and said. They are opposing $28 billion of savings. Five billion dollars of those savings are, in fact, what they promised the Australian people at the last election. They lied to the Australian people because they actually said they were going to have $5 billion of savings and now they are opposing their own savings. Then, on top of that, he has got $15 billion of new promises. Bankcard Bill. There is no limit on that bankcard right there.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence!
There is no limit on your bankcard, mate.
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to remind the Treasurer to refer to members by their title.
The Treasurer will kindly refer to members by their correct titles.
So we have got Bankcard Bill here who thinks it is absolutely—
Opposition members interjecting—
I rise on a point of order.
Resume your seat. This is allegedly the last day that we are sitting in this 2014 year, and the behaviour is reflecting that fact. But we are not going to have a wall of noise and total disorder in this place, and if it means being removed, so be it.
I cannot think of a time where a ruling has been—
What is the point of order?
Your all ruling was just directly abused by the Treasurer. You ordered him to address people by their correct parliamentary titles. In his first sentence, he ignored your ruling.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer will refer to people by their correct titles, and there will be silence.
As a result of the actions of the Labor Party, we have ended up with a bankcard bill that we have to pay down. We have ended up with the mess that we have to pay down. The problem is that every time we try to put out the fire of debt, it is the Labor Party that is standing in the way.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister lie to Australians and then introduce a GP tax?
Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal of tolerance given to opposition questions over the last 12 months—a very wide parameter. They are always full of argument, always full of inference, always full of debate. In the spirit of a robust chamber, you have allowed that and you have been very generous to the opposition. But accusing a member of the House of deliberately telling lies in the chamber in the question is stretching the parameters too far, and I would ask you to chasten the Manager of Opposition Business in the House or deal with him in a way that you see fit.
The fact of the matter is that this tendency to utilise what is unparliamentary language in questions is not satisfactory. I would simply ask the member for Watson to rephrase his question, and this will be the standard that we will use. We will not use those terms in a question.
I have a point of order just before I do, and I will rephrase as you have requested. But the opposition would expect that answers like what the Treasurer just gave are disorderly for the exact same reason because he used the same terms.
The Manager of Opposition Business knows perfectly well that the standing orders and how they are couched entirely relate to the way in which questions are asked, not answers given, with the exception of the relevancy question. The question of what is considered to be acceptable language is determined by me, in this case. So I will ask him to rephrase his question, and this will be the standard—and all the cacophony coming from behind will make no difference.
Why did the Prime Minister break his election promises and then introduce a GP tax?
I said that there would be no cuts to health, and health spending goes up every year. I think members opposite might have some problems finding any statement by me in the election campaign to the effect that there would never be a co-payment, because co-payments are part of our health system. Thanks to members opposite, co-payments are a part of our system. Bob Hawke was the father of the Medicare co-payment, the shadow Assistant Treasurer was the brother of the co-payment and the member for Jagajaga there was perhaps the stepgodmother of the co-payment. She certainly authored the report that led to it.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Madam Speaker, it is like being flayed by a warm lettuce—
The member will resume his seat.
I will make three points in conclusion. First, Medicare must be sustainable. A decade ago it was costing $8 billion, now it is costing $20 billion, a decade hence, and without appropriate action it will cost us $34 billion. This great Medicare system must be made sustainable and it will be by this government. Second, price signals in the system are not bad policy, they are good policy because they help to make people appreciate, as they do with the PBS, what they are getting largely courtesy of the taxpayer. Third, we want to see our world-class health and medical researchers properly funded and that is exactly why we are creating a world leading Medical Research Future Fund. We are absolutely up-front about the need to make Medicare sustainable. Only this government is in the business of making Medicare sustainable. The members opposite are in the business of making endless promises that this country simply cannot afford.
My question is to the Minister for Communications. We have been pleased to have announcements recently on fixed and wireless internet. My question is about the NBN long-term satellite service. Can the minister tell us when it will be made available for households and businesses, particularly in Indi but also other areas of Australia, and how will the download and upload speeds compare with other NBN delivery technologies?
I thank the honourable member for her question and note that she said that Wangaratta is included in the 18-month rollout plan for fibre to the node, and there are thousands of her constituents either with access to the fixed wireless network or who shortly will have access because construction of those towers is underway. In Indi there are about 1,000 premises accessing the interim satellite solution. This was a $300 million catastrophe of mismanagement by the Labor Party. They spent $300 million on an Interim Satellite Service, which has ended up giving about 40,000 Australians access to dial-up speeds only. It was promised on the basis there would be six megabits per second download speed. Under the Howard government, which was a Liberal-National government that knew how to manage things like this, there was a requirement on the retail service providers, under the Australian Broadband Guarantee, that they had to ensure users could get 65 per cent of peak speeds at least 85 per cent of the time. There was no such requirement under Labor's hopelessly mismanaged scheme. The consequence has been, as I said, over $300 million was spent, and a quarter of a million people were told that they would have access to the service and there was only ever capacity for 45,000 to 48,000 at best, and customers are only getting dial-up speeds. That is a truly wasteful exercise of mismanagement, classic Labor Party stuff. The long-term satellites will be launched in the latter part of next year. We expect that customers will be able to purchase plans from late 2015 or early 2016. The highest speed tiers will be 25 megabits per second down, five megabits per second up.
A great deal of work is going into planning the way in which the spectrum is managed so as to ensure that we do not have the same problems with the long-term satellites that we had with the interim satellite. The honourable member may have regard to a discussion paper that the NBN Co recently put out—this is going to be a very, very important part of the program. The coalition does not believe that the government should have been involved in a project of this size at all, but the one part of Australia where there is need for government involvement is in regional and remote communities and that, of course, is where satellite and fixed wireless services are going to be available.
I have a question for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the minister to advise the House on the steps that the government is taking to prevent extremists from leaving Australia to fight in Syria and in the Iraqi conflict and to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism.
I thank the member for Berowra for his very important question. The government places the highest priority on national security and that includes the threat posed by extremists who are supporting or joining terrorist organisations. Despite some recent gains against ISIL, or Daesh, in Syria and Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters remains. We estimate that about 15,000 foreign terrorist fighters from over 80 countries are fighting with terrorist groups in various conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The United Nations estimates that about 200 foreign fighters are joining ISIL every month—so the threat is growing. Since January of this year, ISIL has focused on capturing and consolidating control over large areas of Iraq and Syria, with the Syrian province of Al-Raqqa serving as its de facto capital from where much of its operations are being directed. ISIL uses terrorist attacks extensively against civilians. This includes frequent mass casualty attacks and mass executions, including beheadings. ISIL boasts of these atrocities through social media and magazines that depict these violent acts. Five of these videos have featured American or British citizens and have included statements intended to threaten or intimidate western audiences. In recent months, ISIL atrocities in Al-Raqqa have included the beheading of 50 Syrian soldiers, with their heads being mounted on stakes, the kidnapping of thousands of women with them being sold as sex slaves and the routine raping by ISIL fighters in Syria of girls as young as nine.
Under the provisions of our foreign fighters legislation I have today declared Al-Raqqa province an area where a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity. This now makes it an offence under Australian law to enter or remain in the province of Al-Raqqa without a legitimate purpose. Anyone who enters or remains in Al-Raqqa faces a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. This does not prevent people travelling to the area for legitimate purposes.
It might be useful to the House if I table the maps depicting Al-Raqqa. I will pass one over to the Leader of the Opposition, as I briefed him earlier today.
Today's listing will help law enforcement agencies bring to justice those who have committed serious offences, including associating with or fighting for terrorist organisations overseas. There is more to do. I have also cancelled around 75 passports and refused to issue around 10, to stop extremists leaving Australia to fight in conflicts. This government is committed to taking whatever steps are necessary at home and abroad to keep Australia safe from terrorism.
I seek indulgence of the House to add a few comments to the answer that the Prime Minister has just given on this serious issues.
Very brief ones, yes.
The opposition, like the government, has been extremely concerned about the reports of human rights violations in Al-Raqqa. There have been reports from the United Nations and from citizen journalists who have been active on the ground there to get information out about what ISIL—Daesh—has been doing. We also know that this area is the capital—the headquarters, the centre of gravity—for this organisation. It is from this area that attacks on Kobani and other parts of Syria and Iraq are being launched, driven and resourced.
We also know, sadly, that there are Australians in senior positions in this organisation in this area. And there is no good reason for any Australian to be on this ground in this area, particularly not in the positions that we see in this organisation. So we are pleased to support, in a bipartisan way, what really is an extraordinary measure—to declare a whole area a no-go zone, as we are doing today.
We think it is very important that when this parliament has extraordinary new powers, that with those powers go transparency and accountability measures, and we will continue to engage in those. We are also very willing to assist the government. We are very concerned about the increasing numbers of Australians who are going to this region and the broader region to fight in what is a terrible conflict. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that indulgence.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to Australians and cut $6,000 from families?
I have not done any such thing. What we said before the election is that the so-called schoolkids bonus was a cash splash with borrowed money, and it had to stop. That is what we said. We said that the so-called schoolkids bonus was a cash splash with borrowed money, and it had to stop. We were absolutely upfront with the Australian people that this was an irresponsible promise that should never have been made.
What we see repeatedly from members opposite is hysterical outrage because measures that were simply unsustainable and should never have been put in place in the first place are quite properly being withdrawn by this government. Members opposite ripped off the future to try to sustain their present. That is what they did. They ripped off future generations of Australians shamelessly and shamefully. They ripped off the future in order to prop themselves up in office. It is contemptible behaviour from members opposite having booby-trapped the budget to now complain about our attempts—our perfectly proper attempts—to fix things for the benefit of millions of Australians as yet unborn, and every single Australian who deserves to have a country which can hold its head up high because it is living within its means.
I rise on a point of order. I seek leave to table the NATSEM modelling of 2013-14—
No. The member will resume her seat.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister update the House on how the government has assisted small businesses in my electorate of Lyons and around the country by delivering on our election commitments this year?
It has been a year of positive action. The Abbott government has done an outstanding job implementing its election commitments. That is great for the government's achievements but it means even more for the small business men and women of Australia. It has progressed and improved prospects for them, where we are working to implement our election commitments.
It is not just in the electorate of the member for Lyons; this is right across the country. We have abolished the carbon tax. Hasn't that been great for small business? There have been $2 billion cuts to red and green tape. No-one suffers more from excessive red tape than small businesses. We have had the root and branch review of the competition laws—something desperately needed, that Labor would never go near.
There has been reform of the franchise code. That has been talked about for years but it has been done and delivered by this government. We have reformed the Export Market Development Grant Program and EFIC to better support small businesses which are taking advantage of the trade agreements that Minister Robb has executed with China, Japan and Korea.
There is the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program and support, through the Restart program, for mature age jobseekers, who have been welcomed and encouraged to be a part of the small business community. Work has gone into making sure that small businesses can ring Fair Work without being threatened with prosecution for the information they disclose—100,000 calls have been delivered to Fair Work, and assistance has been provided.
So we are well advanced in implementing our election commitments, but the winners of that action are the small businesses and family enterprises of Australia. But there is more work to do, because we work as hard for the success of small business as small business people do for themselves. Unfair contract term protections for small business are being advanced; deferring compulsory employer funded super so that businesses can get their heads above water; our Paid Parental Leave scheme, giving small and medium sized enterprises the chance to offer what big government departments and big corporates offer; looking after independent contractors and the self-employed; establishing a Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; making sure finance is available for small business. There is so much happening here that is changing the environment and encouraging enterprise in our country. And, boy, didn't we need a change. There were 519,000 jobs lost under Labor. There was no interest in those job losses because none of them were union jobs. We had more Labor small business ministers than we had activity in enterprise and small business.
We are starting to see the differences. ASIC figures show us there were 100,000 more company registrations under this year of progress and achievement. Improvement in business conditions was captured by the ACCI survey and the Westpac small business interest. We have so much more to do. It has also been a year when Labor could not bother asking me a single question about small business—not one question from Labor. Small business people would know that in this place there is only one side of politics that cares about their interests, and that is the coalition. We will keep working. You can keep obstructing. Small business know which side is working for their support.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister broke his promise to Australians by introducing $100,000 degrees. Does the Prime Minister now regret his year of unfairness, chaos and broken promises?
This is a complete fantasy, a complete fabrication—an absolute, complete and utter fabrication being peddled by the member who asked the question. There is no such thing as the kinds of degrees that the member who asked the question is referring to—no such thing. Members opposite should stop deceiving and scaring the people of Australia. It is part of this whole contemptible business that we see sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition.
Let us understand just how trustworthy this opposition is. Let us understand.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know they do not like it, but let me quote from Paul Kelly's authoritative book—
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide has been warned!
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The return to how he was as opposition leader is not being directly relevant to the question.
The member will resume his seat, and we will have no more abuses of the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call.
The whole tenor of question time that the Leader of the Opposition has orchestrated is about trust. I am happy to deal on the question of trust, because it was said just a few months ago, in Paul Kelly's authoritative book, Triumph and Demise:
The distrust between Rudd and Shorten was intense and injuring. The Gillard camp was contemptuous of Shorten, considering him weak and duplicitous. Neither side trusted him and neither side revised its view.
Let's not take Paul Kelly as the only source here. People who know this person well understand that he simply cannot be trusted. I am quoting the former Prime Minister now, Julia Gillard. She routinely referred to the likes of Albanese, Swan, Mark Arbib and Billy Shorten as the dark side of the ALP—numbers men who believed in nothing but themselves. If two Labor Prime Ministers could not trust this opposition leader, if his own colleagues could not trust him, if his own leaders could not trust him, the Australian people will never trust him.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I remind the minister that parts of my electorate of Maranoa are experiencing a one-in-100-year drought event. Will the minister update the House on the extended measures put in place to support these farmers?
I thank the member for Maranoa for the question. Obviously, I have an acute knowledge of the seat of Maranoa, having lived there for quite a while, having started a business there. There was a Senate office that was further from the coast than any other Senate office in the history of this nation, which shows our belief in regional areas.
It is with great pleasure today that we announce a $100 million facility for further assistance, at a rate of 3.21 per cent over 10 years, giving people access to this money for 10 years. I also note the member for Parkes, Mark Coulton, who has done so much work towards this—3.21 per cent for 10 years; five years interest only; five years PNI; borrowing up to $1 million. This is to help people who are dealing with those droughts—a one-in-100-year drought in so many areas—but it also gives consideration to those who are near that one-in-100-year drought area. It also deals with people who have to deal with the ravages of the cessation of the live cattle trade to Indonesia—something that fully lays on the shoulders of the other side who closed it down and absolutely decimated those people's lives and decimated their incomes. It has been left to this side to try to fix it up. We are very proud of the work we have done here on agriculture. We are very proud of the work that the coalition has done, because it was under your government, the previous government—just to start off, you halved the size of the budget in agriculture. If you—
The minister will direct his comments through the chair and use the correct terms for members.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The previous government halved the size of the budget of agriculture. When they started, there was the interim farm family payment. They had only—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield and his bananas will leave under 94(a)
granted 367 loans—367 people got the interim farm family payment. Under our government, 4,395 people. It just goes to show—
Honourable members interjecting —
We know who eats bananas, don't we? There will be silence. The minister will resume his seat. For those people who found the bananas amusing, we know who eats bananas, don't we? The minister has the call.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It just goes to show you the contempt that the other side have, and they have taken this chamber to an absolute point of ridicule. We are trying to make absolutely certain that we do things to help people. They just go to their circus clown antics. They only managed to put out eight loans. We have put out 430.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The members for Gorton and Grayndler will desist.
They shut down the live cattle trade. We have completed three free trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan. That just goes to show you what an incredible difference of governments makes and what a disaster you were, and how we are going to look after the people who are doing it so tough.
Honourable members interjecting—
The minister has finished his speech. The member will resume his seat. After the bananas incident I am not amused. I call the honourable member for Braddon.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Braddon will resume his seat. It is in fairness the opposition's turn, however, if we do not have any more silence, he will not get the opportunity either. The member for Hunter has the call to ask a question.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am hopeful you will extend me an indulgence to join with the Minister for Agriculture, on behalf of the opposition, in extending best wishes to those farm families who are facing a very difficult time at the moment with the drought and, of course, who are facing a very, very difficult Christmas. It is a Christmas which will be made all the more difficult by the fact that there is not one additional new cent in that drought package, just a rehash—
The member will resume his seat. The member will leave under 94(a), and consider himself lucky not to be named. The member for Braddon has the call.
The member for Hunter then left the chamber.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the call. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to resolve the legacy caseload of 30,000 people who arrived illegally by boat under the previous government?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question and for his keen interest in these issues. Over the course of this past year, in fact, since 9 December last year, there has not been a death at sea—not a single death at sea, this year, as a result of the strong border protection policies that have been put in place by this government. Critical to that achievement, this year, was the introduction of turn backs on 19 December last year. After the introduction of the PNG arrangement, which was supported by us when we were in opposition, there were 79 deaths that followed that announcement. Since the introduction of turn backs, on 19 December last year, there have not been any deaths.
The government are stopping the boats, which is something I know the member for Chisholm acknowledged earlier today. That was one of our core commitments going to the election. One of the other commitments was that we would resolve the legacy caseload of the 30,000 people Labor left behind on their watch and did not process. They just left 30,000 people behind, and 24,500 of them never even had their processing commenced under the previous government.
Mr Marles interjecting—
Are you going to ask me a question? If you are not, sit down.
Mr Marles interjecting—
Resume your seat. The minister has the call. The member for Corio will resume his seat. I refer you to page 189 of The Practice. Resume your seat. Go and read The Practice. Resume your seat. The minister has the call.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The package of measures, which have been put to this parliament, which is opposed by Labor and the Greens, addresses this caseload while also strengthening our border protection regime. It denies the people smugglers' promise, which those opposite want to honour. It strengthens the turn back provisions under the Maritime Powers Act, the turn backs which those opposite want to turn back. It establishes a fair and efficient process for resolving the 30,000 cases that are languishing, and languished, on the watch of those opposite. It gives 25,000 people on bridging visas working rights while they wait for these claims to be processed.
The caseload of people who arrived after 19 July to the end of the year, which under the previous government's policy, and under our government's policy until now, would be going to Nauru and would be able to be brought onshore and processed onshore. This included 460 and more children which will be taken out of detention as a result of that decision. We will increase the refugee and humanitarian intake responsibly and sustainably, and fund it by a total of 7,500 places over the budget and forward estimates. That is something I know the member for Brisbane, the member for Deakin, the member for Reid and the member for Hindmarsh have been committed advocates for some time.
These commitments would not have been possible had this government not been so successful in stopping the boats. This is a package of measures that will clean up the mess that those opposite left behind, and it will continue to stop the deaths at sea, deaths that occurred at will under the previous government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister intending to present savings that will never pass the parliament, like his unfair GP tax, a tax on pensions, and $100,000 university degrees, in his mini budget? Won't this make his mini budget a fundamentally misleading document?
The upcoming MYEFO statement will ensure that the Australian public know how the post budget commitments that this government has made can be paid for. That is what it will do.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned!
Every single inference, implication or statement in the member for McMahon's question is false, absolutely false. Yet again we have members opposite, members of the Labor Party, wilfully misleading the people of Australia—as they did so often in their repeated statements about a budget surplus—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member will resume his seat.
that they never ever had any intention of delivering.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The member will resume his seat! I said you will resume your seat and I refer you to Practice.
This is a Labor Party which has seriously misled the Australian people, serially and seriously—and they are doing it yet again now. The Australian people, I think, have had enough of the constant mendacity, the constant untruths—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned!
and the constant fraudulence from members opposite. This government is repairing the budget. Members opposite are doing their best to sabotage the budget repair job at every turn. We are taking responsibility for cleaning up the mess that members opposite created.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Gorton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
Members opposite will not even admit responsibility for creating the mess in the first place. Shame on them!
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am asking for something to be withdrawn. Under page—
The member will resume his seat!
My question is to the Treasurer—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the government has had two questions in a row and you have administered this matter—
I am sorry. You missed the call.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the house importance of good financial management when allocating taxpayers' funds?
I thank the honourable member for Bennelong for his question. This is the last sitting Thursday before Christmas and I want to share my Christmas good wishes with everyone. I think it is important to give people, family and friends a range of different books for Christmas. I think it is important that we have good reading. The first bit of good reading I would recommend is The design and conduct of the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia FundBallarorts! It is compelling reading about how Labor—
Opposition members interjecting—
Do you think that Labor booklet you are holding up is compelling reading? That should be in the remainder bin with Wayne Swan's autobiography. Swannie, it is a better seller that yours, mate!
The Treasurer will resume his seat. I said if those props were held up again that they would be collected by the attendants. Kindly hand them in and you can get them at the end of this question time.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the opposition in this question time to be in a situation where we cannot even ask for something to be withdrawn—
The member will resume his seat! This is defiance of the chair encouraged by you. Now put those down!
Are you going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw unparliamentary remarks?
I have not heard any unparliamentary remarks.
I tried four times to stand and tell you about them.
If you are referring to where words are used in a collective manner, that is not against the standing orders nor against the Practice. The member will resume his seat.
It is in the book.
The member will resume his seat. If you read on, you will find some more. Resume your seat.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I ask again that the Treasurer use the correct title for the member for Lilley. He again failed to do so.
I would remind the member for Moreton that, if a point of order is being used to disrupt an answer, it is not acceptable. However, he has a reasonable point on this occasion, and the Treasurer will use the proper terminology for members.
It is hugely important that we have good Christmas reading and it is important that Australians be fully aware of the rorting by the previous government, the Labor government, of taxpayers' money. It is known as 'Ballarort'.
On a point—
The member for Franklin will resume her seat.
That is compelling reading, but I also recommend a better understanding of what Labor is about. I went to Bruce Hawker's The Rudd Rebellion, which is actually pretty good reading. There are two things you need in politics. You need trust and you need honesty.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Batman!
Here, I reckon, Bruce Hawker has belled the cat when he said:
Chris Bowen had gone on Lateline last night and run the 'who do you trust?' line on instructions from campaign headquarters, and I realised how ridiculous it sounded. After the last three years, we'd be lucky to be trusted to walk the dog around the park. So at 6.30am I insisted we change it back to 'doubt'.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide will leave under 94(a).
Even Bruce Hawker said you cannot trust Labor. Of course no-one beats Mark Latham in his description of the Leader of the Opposition. When talking about economic reform, he says this about the Leader of the Opposition:
Little Billy was in my ear about the FTA telling me that party had to support it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: you have to draw the line somewhere, and The Latham Diaries is too far.
The member will resume his seat and remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
In a sense he is right, but this guy was your leader! He said:
Little Billy was in my ear about the FTA, telling me the party has to support it. I said I thought both he and his union were against it, to which he responded, 'That's just for the members. We need to say that sort of thing when they reckon their jobs are under threat. I want it to go through. The US alliance is too important to do otherwise. Politically, you have no choice.'
There is Mark Latham saying that Little Billy says one thing to his members and says something else to the leaders of the Labor Party. This man is weak. He is weak, insipidly weak, inconsistent— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence. And if the silence does not continue—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
What is the point of order, Member for Braddon?
I would like to draw your attention to the defiance of the chair, in that the member for Swan has refused to the attendant, clearly—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Lilley—
Resume your seat.
Thank you, Madam Speaker—
No, you will resume your seat. The member will resume his seat and remain silent.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer has told Australians to 'go out and spend big'. So why on earth, in this Prime Minister's last parliamentary act before Christmas, is he trying to ram through his attack on pensioners? Why is the Prime Minister's Christmas present to the pensioners of Australia an $80 cut to their entitlements, in the future, per week?
Honourable members interjecting—
I will call the Prime Minister, and there will be silence for the answer.
Yet again, that is an utterly false statement by a Leader of the Opposition who cannot help himself—he is always playing false. The member for Grayndler did not like Mark Latham being quoted in this place, but the member for Grayndler and every member opposite wanted that person to be Prime Minister. So he was good enough to be supported to be Prime Minister, and let me just read his views on the gentleman who is currently the Leader of the Opposition: 'When I first became leader, Bill Ludwig and little Billy Shorten pledged AWU support for me, but you can't trust them as far as you can kick them.' Well, you can't trust anything that this Leader of the Opposition says. That is the truth.
Speaker—
The member will resume her seat.
My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister that the ANAO report into the Regional Development Australia Fund found that:
A feature of the Minister's decision making was the lack of strong alignment between the funding decisions taken and the panel's recommendations …
Why is it important that projects supporting good outcomes for students be funded on the basis of merit?
I thank the member for Murray for her question, and I welcome her back from her sojourn in New York representing the government and the country. I can assure her that it is the case that government projects should be funded on the basis of merit, and I take, for my precedent for that, the remarks of Senator Penny Wong, who said, about the RDAF funding program:
These funding requests were assessed by an independent panel through a transparent, merits-based process, with projects measured against criteria such as value-for-money, eligibility, risk and viability.
That is what Senator Wong said about the RDAF program. Now, tragically for her, the ANAO, which has reported recently, has directly contradicted Senator Wong, and totally hung out to dry the member for Ballarat, the former minister. The ANAO report found that over a quarter of all projects—48 per cent of the total funding approved by the minister—had not been recommended for funding by the advisory council. The ANAO said:
… the Minister made 34 decisions that diverged from the recommendations of the panel …
or more than 80 per cent. As the report highlights, it is difficult to see such a result as being consistent with the competitive, merit based selection process outlined in the published program guidelines. So: the most damning ANAO report in many years, about the government program run by the member for Ballarat, the now shadow minister.
What the ANAO report found was that, in spite of the fact that the government had appointed a hand-picked panel, led by a Labor warrior in Christian Zahra, those decisions that that panel made were not biased enough for the shadow minister—they were not biased enough for the member for Ballarat—so she intervened even further, to make sure that projects that were not recommended for funding, in Labor seats, were funded, but projects that were recommended for funding, in coalition seats, were not funded.
If this Leader of the Opposition was not so weak and duplicitous as has been outlined by the Paul Kelly book, he would sack the shadow minister for health on the other side of the House—he would sack the member for Ballarat—on the basis that she is not a fit and proper person to hold office on this side of the House, if they happened to be elected at the next election. But the Leader of the Opposition will not do that. He will not do that, because he has been exposed as weak. He has been exposed as being on both sides of the argument, wherever he is, whether it is in the caucus, in the Labor Party, or in politics. He is weak, he is duplicitous and he cannot be trusted.
Before I call the member for Isaacs—he will resume his seat—I understand that the booklet that was given in to the attendants earlier has been redistributed. I understand that that is with the intention that there shall be a flouting of my ruling earlier, to use it again. Should that be the case I will be forced to name the person I think is responsible.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, when parliament resumes next year, Senator Johnston will be the Minister for Defence, Senator Sinodinos will be the Assistant Treasurer, and the members for Dobell and Paterson will still be sitting in this parliament?
Senator Johnston—
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence.
is doing a fine job clearing up the mess that he inherited—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Adelaide and the member for Sydney will desist.
The Minister for Defence is doing a fine job, addressing the problems that this government inherited from Labor, in one of the most vital portfolios of all, the portfolio that deals with the defence of our nation. Let us be under no illusions about the problems in this area that this government and this minister inherited. The report into the air warfare destroyer project showed that this was a project that was $300 million over budget and 21 months behind schedule. The Minister for Defence has my full confidence and he deserves the full support of this parliament.
As for Senator Sinodinos, he is the subject of an investigation in New South Wales, and I very much hope that Senator Sinodinos can return to the ministry, but that is subject to the results of this investigation. As for the members of parliament that the shadow Attorney-General mentioned, they are splendid members of parliament who are doing an absolutely outstanding job.
Let me just wrap-up by saying that if there is one thing this government is proud of, it is that this has been a year of delivery by this government for the Australian people. We said we would scrap the carbon tax, the carbon tax is gone. We said we would stop the boats, the boats are stopped. We said we would build the roads, the roads are building. We said we would repair the budget, and that is exactly what it is doing. This budget is under repair notwithstanding all the efforts of sabotage by this Leader of the Opposition. He backstabbed two prime ministers and now he is backstabbing the budget. First of all, he booby traps the budget and now he is backstabbing the results.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. There will be silence. The Prime Minister has the call.
He backstabbed two prime ministers and he booby trapped the budget. Now, while this government gets on with the job of budget repair, all we get from members opposite is constant sabotage. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is resisting $28 billion worth of savings, including $5 billion worth of savings that he used to support—shame on him.
My question is to the Minister for Health. I remind the minister of the ANAO report into the Regional Development Australia Fund, and I quote:
A feature of the Minister’s decision … was the lack of strong alignment between the funding decisions taken and the panel’s recommendations …
Minister: why is it important that projects supporting good health and sport outcomes for Australians be fair, and funded on the basis of merit?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am just asking whether the minister is confined to answer relevant to his own portfolio responsibilities?
The member will resume his seat. The Minister for Health has the call.
I thank the honourable member for his question. As Australian families approach Christmas, they look back on the year and they realise that their hard work will contribute towards providing for their families, but many of them, millions of Australians who have worked hard this year, have contributed dollars to this government to make sure that we spend it wisely on projects, including in my portfolio of health and in sport, and in education—in all of the areas that we have responsibility for.
Part of the reason that the Australian people were so angry at Labor over the course of the last six years was because they wasted billions and billions of dollars—an absolute disgrace. The Labor Party got kicked out of office because, over the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, they wasted money in health and they wasted money in education—
The member will resume his seat.
But I have a point of order Madam Speaker.
No, I refer you to page 189. Resume your seat.
They presided over the wastage of money and in this most recent report from the Audit Office—not a report from this government and not from the Prime Minister or from me—an independent report that analysed the member for Ballarat in her then ministerial position, and analysed her spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, decided that that money had not been spent appropriately, that decisions had not been presided over properly.
That is why the Australian public should be angry to this day towards the Labor Party, who took that money out of the pockets of hardworking Australians and wasted it. They wasted that money and they have been called out by the responsible agency for oversighting these things, the Australian National Audit Office.
There was money that was allocated into marginal Labor seats that was taken away from regional areas and put into outer metropolitan seats, like the member for McMahon's. It was deemed to be inappropriate and the Labor Party stands condemned for that.
Australia's work very hard to provide for their families, they put money into governments, and they want it spent responsibly. That is why this government was elected to clean up Labor's mess and to make sure—
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat. Unless we have silence then this question time is getting very close to simply being farce. The Minister for Health has the call.
They can object all they want. They can interject and this noise can continue. It does not change the fact that the member for Ballarat rorted money.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs is relieved under 94(a). The member will leave under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Not only does she stand condemned but she refuses to come to the dispatch box here and apologise to the Australian public. This government has a mess to clean up. Over the course of the last 12 months, yes, we have made tough decisions in the best interests of the Australian people. Yes, we have taken the right decisions for the future of this country and we will stand by those decisions.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, I was the 250th person ejected from this House earlier this year and—
The member will resume his seat.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member will resume his seat. The member knows perfectly well that under standing order 103 he may only ask on questions of administration and his frivolous question is denied.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
For the information of honourable members I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of the House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 17 July 2014 and the date of the last schedule and 3 December 2014. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated into Hansard.
THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES
(also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between
17 July 2014, the date of the last schedule, and 3 December 2014)
4 December 2014
THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES
TO COMMITTEE REPORTS
The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 17 July 2014. It also lists reports for which the House has not received a government response. Schedules of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, generally in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.
The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights are only listed where the committee has examined and reported on a specific item(s) of existing legislation. Not listed are that committee's regular reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments that come before either House of Parliament.
Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Reports from other committees which do not include recommendations are only included when first tabled.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report.
4 December 2014
Notes
1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.
2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.
3. For reports up to the end of 42nd Parliament, the time specified is three months from the date of tabling. While the Government has undertaken to continue to respond to reports within three months, from the 43rd Parliament (28 September 2010 onwards) the period within which the House requires a response is six months—see resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six month period. The period from when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 and the commencement of the 44th Parliament on 12 November 2013 is not included in the response period.
4. Since July 2011 the Government has advised that it does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule.
5. Since December 2013 the Government has advised that it does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule.
6. In December 2013 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond to the report as this matter is being considered as part of the Government's Financial System Inquiry. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule. In December 2014 the Government advised that it does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled.
7. In December 2014 the Government advised that it does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled.
8. In December 2014 the Government advised that the need for a response was overtaken by legislation introduced by the previous Government and passed by the previous Parliament.
9. In December 2014 the Government advised that given the passage of time and the change of government, the Government does not intend to respond to the report.
10. In December 2014 the Government advised that given the passage of time and the change of government, the Government does not intend to respond to the report.
11. In June 2009 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond formally to this report. The committee awaits a response to recommendations of the report. In November 2009 the Government indicated a response is being considered and will be tabled in due course. In November 2011 and December 2013 the Government indicated it was in discussion with the committee on this matter. In July 2014 the Government advised that the Independent Contractors Act 2006 was assented to on 1 December 2006 and that the Government's response was covered during debate on the Bill.
12. In July 2014 the Government advised that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 lapsed when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued. As at 13 May 2014, this Private Senator's Bill has not been restored to the Notice Paper, or re-introduced. The Government noted that in the report the committee recommended the bill not be passed. The report will be removed from the next schedule.
13. In July 2014 the Government advised that the response was provided by the introduction, passage and Royal Assent of the Act on 24 October 2012, and indicated that no further response would be provided. The committee has agreed to accept the Second Reading speech and the Senate summing up statement as the formal response to the Committee's comments. This report will be removed from the next schedule.
14. In December 2014 the Government advised that it will not be tabling a response to this report and commented that the Committee's report was effectively responded to by the enactment of the Coastal Shipping (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 under the previous government. The Government indicated that is considering options to improve regulation of Australian shipping.
15. The Government has now responded to the recommendations by Executive Minute, excluding recommendation 14. A partial response was provided on 5 February 2012 and the final part of the response was provided on 22 September 2014. The Committee has resolved that no further action is required regarding a response by the Australian National Audit Office to recommendation 14. The report will be removed from the next schedule.
16. The Australian National Audit Office has responded by Executive Minute.
17. On 14 July 2014 the Government advised the Committee that on 25 June 2014 it has announced funding for the National FASD Action Plan, and that the plan would form the basis of the formal response to the inquiry. The Committee still awaits a response to recommendations of the report.
18. On 2 October 2014 the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Speaker seeking assistance to resolve the matter of the outstanding government response, in accordance with paragraph (3) of the resolution on government responses to committee reports, adopted on 29 September 2010. The Speaker subsequently wrote to the Minister for Justice seeking his assistance in resolving this matter. The government response was tabled on 24 November 2014.
On indulgence—Madam Speaker, members might like to know the status of the Senate at the moment. They are debating legislation which will have to return to the House of Representatives. My strong advice to the Senate is that we know the position of the Labor Party, the Greens and the government on these issues and now the crossbenchers—
Mr Feeney interjecting—
You don't want to hear? Do you want to go home?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I have given the call to the Leader of the House. There will be silence.
We know the positions of the government and the opposition on these bills and therefore I would urge senators not to debate these matters well into tomorrow or the next day but simply to make their points and we will then have those bills returned to the House. We will sit tonight. We hope that that will be the final sitting for the year. I would much prefer members to be able to go home on the first planes in the morning and I am sure most members would agree. The Senate are sitting and we know what they are doing. I believe we will have a dinner break—I suggest at probably about half-past six until about nine o'clock and then return, to give members the chance to go out of the House and have dinner. But I will keep the House updated. I am obviously keeping the Manager of Opposition Business in the House updated and we are liaising on what we think might be best. I cannot rule out that the Senate will sit all night and therefore we might need to return here at 9 am tomorrow. If that becomes apparent, I do not intend to sit the House all night fruitlessly but, instead, allow us to go home at a reasonable hour and then come back tomorrow. That is as much information as I have.
An opposition member interjecting—
You don't want to know, either? Thank you very much for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I will continue to update the House as more information comes to light.
I thank the Leader of the House for that update.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Prime Minister’s year of underachievement.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The year 2014 is the year that Tony Abbott wants us to forget. Unfortunately, this is the year which Australians will remember for the rest of their lives. The proposition which I advance today as a matter of public importance is that this is not what the Prime Minister says is a year of achievement, laughable as that is; this has been a year of underachievement from a government which has let down the Australian people. Every government gets elected with the goodwill of the Australian people, but no government has burnt its bridges so quickly. When we think back to 12 months ago, the Treasurer had goaded Holden into going, losing thousands of jobs, and now we find out it was so he could clear the decks for a free trade agreement. But the list of job losses in this country is far longer than just Holden: Rio at Gove; Toyota; Alcoa; Forge in Western Australia; thousands of more jobs in small businesses and manufacturing; and defence construction. The renewable energy industry is at risk. When the Australian people were beginning to worry at the start of this year about the issue of jobs, sadly confirmed in the last few days by the national accounts figures and unemployment numbers, we discovered that in March this year the Prime Minister's plan for jobs was to come up with the idea of knights and dames. It has been a most extraordinary year.
A government member interjecting—
It was funny! Just for the record, the Labor Party will have no problems debating this policy curly question at our national conference. We have opposed the imperial honours system since 1916. Today is the end of a shocking week, in a dreadful year, of a terrible government. This bunch opposite behave in a dishonest fashion. They have no fidelity between their election promises and what they do in government. They are out of touch—a point I will come back to—and clearly they are incompetent.
Let us think about some of the earlier months of 2014, because the problem with this government is an embarrassment of riches to oppose and every week there are problems—I don't know; maybe it is a cunning strategy by the government—they make bigger blunders the following week so you forget about their blunders the previous week. But remember the Commission of Audit.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
A good document, the good member for Kooyong said. Indeed, it was their plan B. They put it out before they put out plan A. However, I do not expect a single Victorian Liberal member to be saying that it is a good document because, at least, when it came to defending their Senate position in Western Australia, defending the Liberal Party in South Australia and indeed in Tasmania, the Commission of Audit sat on it and sat on it, so as not to compromise their electoral chances. They did not show that same courtesy to the former jewel in the Liberal crown, in Victoria. They could not wait. In the first week, they said, 'Dear Denis, just before I come down and hug you, I want to impose a petrol tax.'
When you look at the issue of underachievement, no discussion on the underachievement of this government could possibly go unnoticed without looking at who gets the trophy in the member of this gang for the biggest underachiever? Possibly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs gets the top banana—easily the best-performing woman in the Abbott cabinet. She is going so well that the PMO has decided to make her take excess baggage to Lima—the Minister for Trade!
Joe Hockey—what a year he has had! Two great publications—he launched a budget and he launched his book. It is hard to know which one his colleagues liked more. And then of course we had his John Farnham style tour—trying one more time to sell his rotten budget. And we will never forget the gig he had with Jacqui Lambie—that did not end so well! And of course Joe Hockey has memorably given us the arguments that the strong economic reformers need. 'A GP tax, that's just a couple of beers'—that line worked! 'Pensioners have never had it so good'—I would not go there again, Joe! And don't worry about the petrol tax—because 'poor people don't drive cars'!
And in the other House there are some contributors. Senator Brandis made two noteworthy contributions. The first was 'the right to be a bigot'—memorable! And then there was that interview on metadata, which was possibly the most awkward bit of television since the 70-second staring competition the Prime Minister had with Mark Riley! And then of course we had 'old charm offensive' himself, Senator Abetz—more offence than charm—bobbing up on The Project. That must have been a set up—I have heard the expression 'first-time guest', but he was a first-time viewer! And he gave us some 1950s medical science. And then there was the Minister for the Environment—whose title is sheer irony. He has defended the Antarctic walrus, the Tasmanian tiger and any other animal he finds on Wikipedia! We had of course the Minister for Immigration, working relentlessly on 'Operation Self-promotion'! And then there was the Minister for Communications. He is cutting the ABC and the SBS. I think it might be time to hang up that leather jacket, Malcolm! And speaking of communicators there is Christopher Pyne. He has been texting in his CV to be the Minister for Communications—or perhaps the 'minister for unsolicited communications'! And this is the mob who want to 'put the adults back in charge'!
Of course, 2015 promises to be a potential follow-on from this year of underachievement. Will Senator Johnston be the Minister for Defence? Will he keep his 'rhetorically flourishing canoe' up his 'unparliamentary creek'? We know what Stuart Robert is cheering for! Will Barnaby Joyce visit Shepparton—or has he wiped it off his mental map like Whyalla? And then of course there is the longest 'position vacant' stint—will we have an Assistant Treasurer again in Australia? And so we look promisingly to the contenders—the colt from Kooyong, the member for Moncrieff or that fast-finishing country thoroughbred the member for Wannon?
All of this would be even funnier if the following were not true: Australia cannot afford a year like the one that has just passed. We cannot afford to have unemployment at 6.2 per cent when Labor left it at 5.7 per cent. We cannot afford to have a 13-year high in youth unemployment, which is now at 14 per cent. There are 42,000 more unemployed people around the country following the government's damaging budget. We certainly cannot afford to have another year of the Prime Minister's broken promises. Australians are better than this government. Australians deserve better than this government. We need a government with vision and a plan for the future, not a government that is adrift both domestically and internationally.
Labor in 2014 is standing strong for fairness. We have been standing very strong. We have been defending Medicare. We have been fighting for families who are under pressure from the increased costs of living. We are fighting for a fair pension—and we will keep fighting till we make sure that your cuts do not go through. Dignity in retirement, we believe, is a birthright of all Australians. And yes, despite faux mini-me Churchill on the other side, we will keep fighting the government's unfair changes to universities. Throughout 2015 we will outline our plan for the future—a plan for inclusive growth and a smart, skilful and fair Australia. We do not believe that growth and fairness are mutually irreconcilable; in fact, each drives the other.
We certainly cannot afford to have the destruction of confidence that we have seen. The national account figures yesterday are a most concerning development. This government has slammed us into an income recession. We are dangerously reliant on iron ore and our minerals, with very little else in our economy to help us. We are seeing wages and profits contract in this country under this government. How long will this government keep blaming everything and everyone else for their inability to do their day job? We have seen higher taxes under this government. Even some of the blue-blood supporters of the Liberal Party, surely, are not excited by the fact that they now pay over 50c in the dollar in tax because of this government. Above all, no-one believes in their multi-millionaire paid parental leave schemes—I know that, in their beating hearts, the government desperately want us to succeed in convincing the Prime Minister to drop that unloved scheme of his.
Let's look at the real challenges of next year. Under this government the deficit has doubled and all the projections are looking grim. The government have colluded with the Greens to extend the credit card.
Government members interjecting—
They laugh! They probably do not even know what their leader is doing. They are cutting public investment. The reason we regard it as a matter of public importance to debate the year of underachievement is that I do not believe there is a single Australian who is not disappointed by the Abbott government—from their conservative boosters, right through the spectrum of Australian opinion. We on this side understands that growth comes from extending opportunity—from making sure that kids can go to university, right through to making sure that pensioners get a fair deal—and we will promote this next year.
I can understand the frustration of the Leader of the Opposition because this is the first year in three years where he has not been able to stab the back of a Prime Minister! I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he were as good at policy as he is at scripted one-liners then maybe his party would not have had the worst result in 100 years. I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition.
We in government are making a difference. This is the 70th year of the Liberal Party and it is 75 years since our founder, Robert Menzies, first became Prime Minister. And when he established our party he did so believing in a progressive party, one that believed in the power of the individual, in free enterprise, in helping those who cannot help themselves, in ensuring smaller and more efficient government. And when you look at our record over just the last year, we meet all those criteria, and we excel in them.
If you want to talk about the performance of individual ministers, let me go through some of their achievements, starting with the Treasurer, the Minister for Small Business, and the Minister for Finance, who have led our economic team. They have reduced the overall tax burden for Australians by removing that terrible carbon tax, a $9 billion hit on the Australian economy and a $550 hit on all Australian families. And what about the mining tax? That is removing $50 billion for the budget bottom line. It was supposed to project all this revenue, which never eventuated, but what it did do is introduce the dark spectre of sovereign risk into our country.
And what about the 96 unenacted but announced tax and superannuation measures that those opposite introduced when they were in government, only to bring uncertainty to the budgetary situation of so many of our economies? And what about the 76 bodies we have abolished to ensure that government is now streamlined and more efficient? And what about the successful sale of government enterprises to ensure that government is not both the regulator and the operator? There is no better example than the sale of Medibank Private for $5.7 billion—$1 billion more than was expected. And now we have scoping studies into Australian Hearing, into the assets registry, and into Defence Housing, because we believe that government should not be in business where the private sector can be.
And of course there is the most important job of budget repair: $300 billion of fiscal consolidation over the next decade. Politics, according to Bismarck, is the art of the possible. So we have to negotiate with a difficult Senate from a minority position. But we are doing it successfully, thanks to the good work of our economic team. And what about for small business? As the minister told us during question time, more than 500,000 jobs in small business were lost over the term of the Rudd, Gillard and Rudd governments. We have introduced a whole suite of measures, including more than 400,000 small businesses that will not have to go through the PAYG system. This has ensured that we have had tens of thousands of new small business registrations. And in my own area of deregulation we set ourselves an ambitious target of $1 billion a year for cutting red tape. And what have we done? We have actually surpassed that. We have more than doubled it, with $2.1 billion worth of announced measures to cut red and green tape. And some of them are so important, including for small business, for agriculture and our farmers, and right across the economy. So, it has been a very good year when it comes to our economic measures.
What about the environment? The Minister for the Environment has got his $2.5 billion Direct Action Plan through the Senate. He has got his Green Army proposal through the Senate. We have a good position on the Renewable Energy Target, which we believe should be a 20 per cent target. And of course he has abolished the carbon tax. That is a proud record when it comes to the environment.
And what about health? Those opposite talk about the cuts to health. I will talk about the boost to health: a more than 40 per cent increase in funding over the forward estimates, $5.3 billion extra money for hospitals and health over the forward years. And what about the changes we are adopting to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, through our announcement that processes, systems and products that have been approved overseas can come into Australia if they have been done by a trusted international jurisdiction. That is good news, because it means that medical devices and medicines can now get to market quicker, and we can have more choice for consumers at lower cost. And of course our medical research future fund, which is a great development, plays to our strength, because if we can get medical research right then we can find the cures for the future.
And what about education? There is a 37 per cent increase—a $4.9 billion funding increase over the forward years, when those opposite never would have fully funded Gonski, and we have increased our education funding. And of course there are the important higher education changes, which have been strongly supported right across the tertiary sector.
And what about in infrastructure, where there has been a $50 billion spend?—the Pacific Highway, the Bruce Highway, the WestConnex and, we hope, the East West Link in Victoria. And after 50 years of indecision we now have a second airport on the cards for New South Wales—again, a very important decision. Again, we are making a difference when it comes to infrastructure, not just with the big projects but also the $500 million for black spots and the $2.5 billion for Roads to Recovery.
When it comes to the NBN, over the last year alone more than double the number of businesses and homes actually have access to the NBN. It was over budget and it was slow in the rollout under those opposite. But we have taken that performance and reshaped it with a much better scheme under the leadership of our Minister for Communications.
And what about trade? What about those three free trade agreements which are the hallmark of this government's achievements in just its first year? It took six years for those opposite to diddle and daddle and produce no results. We have an agreement with Korea that will lead to 98 or 99 per cent of our products going into Korea tariff-free over the future years. What about Japan? And of course, what about China? There have been big gains in agriculture, with the abolition of tariffs for beef, dairy and horticulture. And what about in resources, where we are seeing coking coal and thermal coal tariffs come off, and aluminium oxide come off? And what about in services?—70 per cent of the Australian economy but just 17 per cent of our exports. And of course now education, health, insurance and financial services can actually get in to the Chinese economy, where they could not previously. This is a groundbreaking agreement, one we are proud of and one that will create jobs into the future.
And what about on foreign policy? The minister for foreign affairs has done a brilliant job with the new Colombo Plan. Under her initiative, 1,300 undergraduates from Australia are going to experience what life is like in the region. They will be ambassadors for Australia, just like the Colombo Plan more than 50 years ago under Percy Spender was for 40,000 people.
And what about the way we have handled the tough issues of defence and national security? There has been new counter-terrorism legislation, thanks to the good work of the Attorney-General, boosting funding and support for the Defence Forces, given that those opposite reduced Defence spending to the lowest level since 1938 at just 1.49 per cent of GDP—and what a disgrace that was.
Of course, we are there when it counts, trying to defeat ISIL—or ISIS, Daesh, or whatever you are going to call the group—in Iraq and in Syria, with our deployment over there of our air force and our special forces, because Australia will not shirk those challenges when they are critical to security here at home. We have seen the good work of our Federal Police, ASIO and our other intelligence services in trying to foil attempts to hurt Australian citizens here at home.
And who can forget our success when it comes to border protection? Those opposite ridiculed us by saying we could not stop the boats, that you could not turn back the boats and that you could not do so without damaging the relationship with Indonesia. Who remembers the then leader of the government, Kevin Rudd, talking about 'Konfrontasi' with Indonesia if we would actually go down the path of the 'turn back the boats' policy. But we have been successful, thanks to the fantastic work of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and his officials. We have succeeded where those have not.
I want to finish with the G20, because that was Australia's moment in the sun, in Brisbane. Eighty-five per cent of the world's GDP here, 75 per cent of the world's trade and two-thirds of the world's population. They saw Australia at its finest. They saw Australia and they produced outcomes—whether it was in infrastructure, growth, tax, shadow banking and a whole series of areas. We have made a difference with G20, thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister.
I am proud of what we have achieved over the last year. We have succeeded where those have failed, and they will see the result at the election in 2016.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I want to take the opportunity on this last day of sittings to wish you and your family a happy Christmas and New Year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you were in the chair the other day when I told the story of my little Louis, who helps himself to the mini Magnums. I do not normally share stories of my family, but today's topic brought to mind another one, and it is about my middle child, Joe. I was going into his room and I was finding that it was getting stinkier and stinkier. I thought, 'Here comes adolescence; his body is changing.' No, it was not that. It was in fact a sandwich—I think it was a sandwich. It was something in his schoolbag that had been there for so many weeks that it was actually unidentifiable. It was mush wrapped in gladwrap, which was leaking liquid—and it was hot to the touch.
The only thing that stays in the schoolbag longer than an uneaten sandwich is a school report—that is, a bad school report. At this time of year you know that, the longer it takes for the school report to get from the schoolbag to the kitchen table, the worse it is going to be. And, really, that did make me think that this week we are doing all of this analysis of what has been happening this year and how we have been doing. I think it is fair to say that, if we did an analysis—a report card—of how this government has done in the last year, it would not be a very good report card.
The Prime Minister promised before the election—he made a number of promises, but let us just take one, for example—that 'Kevin Rudd and I are on an absolute unity ticket when it comes to school funding.' He said that on 4 August. Christopher Pyne, the Manager of Government Business, said, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' How did they live up to that one? Well, Labor committed $14.65 billion to Gonski school education funding. The Prime Minister has guaranteed—guess what—$2.8 billion. The difference between almost $15 billion and less than $3 billion—not a very good grasp of mathematical concepts there.
What is the consequence of the Prime Minister's poor grasp of maths? Let us hear from David Gonski:
There needs to be a commitment to a properly funded, needs-based funding system and a failure to do so will be to our detriment.
Yes, it will be. It will be not just to the detriment of the individual children who will miss out—and there will be individual children who miss out—but to the detriment of this nation if we do not invest in early education, primary school, infant school and indeed high school.
Let us turn to science. How is the Prime Minister doing when it comes to science? What is the biggest scientific debate in Australia, and indeed globally, today? A colourless, weightless gas—it is this little thing called climate change! Here is something from Lord Deben, the former environment minister in the government of Thatcher, the hero of the Prime Minister:
"I haven’t met an Australian who is not deeply ashamed of this government, most of whom voted for Abbott," he said. "How can you say 'we don’t mind what 97% of scientists tell us, we are going to stick two fingers up and do it anyway'?"
That is really what we saw at the G20. We saw a government determined not to discuss climate science. And you add to that cuts to the CSIRO: $115 million from CSIRO funding; losing 400 researchers, including some of the best known internationally; and 300 positions cut as part of an internal restructure. Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty said:
Cutting resources for science, technology, innovation and education is a sure way of accelerating our transition to a Third-World economy.
So he has not been rated very well on maths, our Prime Minister. He has not been rated very well on science. Economics—that is a whole other area. He said he would 'end the debt and deficit'. He has doubled the deficit. He has given debt unlimited, in a dirty deal with the Greens. He has $20 billion for a Paid Parental Leave scheme that no-one wants. He gave $9 billion to the Reserve Bank—unasked for and unneeded. A billion dollars foregone in profit-shifting tax evasion from multinational companies. He has given up the revenue from carbon pricing, but he has kept the compensation. What a disaster it has been.
It is a great delight for me to be able to stand in this chamber and speak on this motion. I do find it slightly ironic that those opposite have proposed a motion about underachievement. It is ironic to me, because it is something, I think, that they know a little bit about. Really, from those opposite, it comes as some high praise. But I think that, in order to properly consider this motion about underachievement, one needs to measure it against a particular standard. I can think of no better standard than that of the member for Lilley.
The member for Lilley promised in this place—and outside of this place—a surplus on more than 400 occasions. In fact, he inherited a $20 billion surplus, and yet delivered in his time as Treasurer over $190 billion worth of deficits and bequeathed to this government another $123 billion worth of deficits going forward. What does this mean? It means increased debt, and on that debt you pay interest. That interest payment is coming in currently at $1 billion a month, which, of course, means about $12 billion a year, and it is going to go up, if we do not reduce the debt, to around $3 billion a month. But we are focused on reducing the debt, and I will have more to say about some of our achievements later.
Given that I have had some recent experience looking at the experience of foreign investment as chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics, I think it is important to draw the House's attention to underachievement in this particular area. Across the evidence that we received in our committee, it came to my attention that, in 2008, the Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, delivered a quiet press release just before Christmas that took away the ability of the Foreign Investment Review Board to screen temporary residents from needing to go to the Foreign Investment Review Board for that screening. It meant that it was very difficult for the Foreign Investment Review Board to conduct proper audit and compliance. They did this very quietly. They did not announce it. They did it quietly, and this led to a very significant change in our foreign investment framework.
Realising that they had made a tremendously significant mistake and hearing this from the local community, they promised before the 2010 election that they would do something about it. Senator Nick Sherry made grand proclamations, as Assistant Treasurer, in a press release, saying that they were going to restore the screening arrangements for temporary residents to have to go to FIRB for the purchase of existing homes. He also promised a number of other things. Not only did he promise that all temporary residents seeking to purchase an existing property would be brought within FIRB notification—which, of course, they had got rid of—he also promised that they would have a better compliance regime, better enforcement measures and new civil penalties, and that real estate agents would be proactively monitored. He said:
I want to make sure that all arms of the Australian government are working optimally together to secure prosecutions where breaches occur.
So, what happened? There has been not one court prosecution since 2006 and not one property divested since 2007. When the next Assistant Treasurer came along after the election he took on responsibility for putting in place this plan. And who was that person? That person was Bill Shorten, and under Bill Shorten not much happened. The civil penalty regime did not happen. The capital gains penalty did not happen. The checks on real estate agents did not happen. Closer enforcement links with the Director of Public Prosecutions did not happen, and data matching with the states did not progress beyond initial trials. About the only thing that did happen was they introduced a hotline. So if you want to talk about underachievement in this place you need to look no further than the Leader of the Opposition who brought forward this motion. He is the biggest underachiever of them all.
We have had significant achievements in government. In the short time that we have been in government, and inheriting the legacy that we did, we have been able to get rid of the carbon tax, which reduces the costs on family, we have stopped the boats, we have got rid of a mining tax, we have been building for the future with our record infrastructure investment of more than $50 billion and we have concluded three free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. We are trying to get on with the job of long-term structural reform, but we are being blocked by those opposite.
No government in recent times has so badly let down the Australian people, broken more promises and betrayed the trust of all Australians, been so arrogant and out of touch with the Australian people, been more shambolic and so quickly lost the support of the Australian people than has the Abbott government. Public opinion reflects that, as did the Victorian state election only a week ago. Despite the denials of members opposite and other government and coalition members across Australia, the fact is that the Australian people rejected this government's, the Abbott government's, policies. The Victorians did not even want the Prime Minister to visit Victoria in the course of that election. So toxic was the Prime Minister and his government that they were barred from going to Victoria.
The Abbott government are a government that still acts as though they in opposition. They do not know how to govern, having no national strategy of their own but simply dancing to the tune of the right-wing extremists both within and outside of their ranks, clinging to simplistic three-word slogans and policies that they used in opposition and blaming all of their woes on everyone else but themselves Those woes include—and hopefully time will allow me to go through all these because five minutes is not a long time—failure to manage the nation's finances by more than doubling the deficit over the forward estimates, failure to bring in their harsh $7 GP tax, failure to get in their unfair $5 billion plus cuts to higher education and bring in $100,000 university fees, failure to get support for their unfair $50,000 Paid Parental Leave scheme, failure to get their cruel pension cuts through parliament.
They also failed to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and had to humiliatingly back away from it. They failed to have their own fuel tax get through parliament in its proper form and had to use the back door in order to get it through. They failed to deliver Indigenous Australians the promises they made to them, instead cutting $534 million of funding to them. They failed to deliver the Gonski education funding and instead cut $30 billion of funding to education. They failed to bring down the cost of living. They failed to reduce unemployment, with unemployment being 5.7 per cent when they came to office and now being 6.2 per cent. They failed to support Australia's young people, with youth unemployment being the highest it has been in 13 years. They failed to create the one million jobs that they promised they would create. They failed to build the 12 new submarines in Adelaide, deliberately breaking another pre-election promise. They failed to honour the Renewable Energy Target and failed to even get crossbench support when they tried to wreck it. This was a double failure on the same issue. They failed to protect the environment by weakening environmental laws, including cutting $484 million from the Landcare programs
They failed to implement a real climate change policy. They failed to even mention the words 'climate change' for almost a year in this chamber, and the environment minister has been missing when it comes to the environment and his real responsibilities. They failed to support Australia's science community by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding, and not even appointing a science minister. They failed to protect the jobs of Australia's autoworkers—one of the most shameful acts of this government was daring the auto companies to leave Australia. They failed to support Australian industries, as the Treasurer himself admitted only on Tuesday, and they sacrificed Australian industry in order to push through free trade agreements.
Perhaps the most notable failure from the government was its woeful performance at the G20 meeting in Brisbane where they failed to capitalise on the opportunity to show real statesmanship on matters of international significance. Instead the Prime Minister was being ridiculed for his shirtfront comments, and he complained to the international community about not being able to get his own policies through his own parliament. It is time the Abbott government took responsibility for its own incompetence and its own failures to understand that the Australian people will not be treated as fools. A government cannot lie its way into office and then expect people to swallow its spin, its excuses and more of its lies. This government—the Abbott government—has failed to honour its election promises, it has lost the trust and confidence of the Australian people, and even the confidence of its own backbench. Its election eve promises of no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC and SBS will haunt it through to the next election. Indeed, Australians do want a government that says what its means and means what it says—this government simply does not live up to their expectations. (Time expired)
I was absolutely delighted to hear the member for Sydney refer to that great woman, Margaret Thatcher. I thought I might begin with a quote from Margaret Thatcher herself, given that she was a woman who truly understood achievement—which, of course, is the topic of the MPI here today. She said:
Look at a day when you are supremely satisfied at the end. It's not a day when you lounge around doing nothing; it's a day you've had everything to do and you've done it.
Throughout history, the finest minds have attempted to define achievement—is it more about persistence than force, is failure a necessary precursor? Of course, the postmodern relativists on the other side of the House can define it however they want. But in the real world where I worked and lived before coming into this place, there is a clearly defined space between achievement and underachievement. The last government defined its achievements by the number of bills it passed, the inches of regulation it imposed, the volumes of reports it produced and the number of new agencies it established. As I go around my electorate I can honestly say no-one gives a hang about any of those measures. The only exception I see is the small number of noisy rent seekers whose wallets were lined by the ALP's incessant waste on pork barrelling rorts, like the RDA fund overseen by the member for Ballarat. As someone who comes from the private sector, where outcomes are all that matter, I am more interested in measures that actually have positive impacts on people's lives. Let us look at the scoreboard: 40,000 boat arrivals and over 1,100 deaths became almost zero and years of inaction on trade agreements driven by the incessant lobbying by ALP-focused rent seekers turned to three massive trade agreements that will drive profound, positive and lasting change to our economy. Dysfunctional taxes were abolished with sharp reductions in costs for businesses and households. Cranes started appearing on the skyline in major cities. We refocussed the NBN, finding massive opportunities for efficiencies and acceleration. A structural deficit which was driven, we are told by Deloittes, by $80 billion of windfall revenues is on its way to zero.
I want to focus on one overarching achievement, which I believe trumps all others—we are beginning to reverse the downward pressure on incomes that was set in motion by Labor's deeply flawed economic policies. Rising real incomes across middle Australia have been a bedrock of this country since European settlement. They have defined our egalitarian culture by sharing prosperity across the nation and down generations, provided opportunities for all of us no matter what our background or heritage, delivered widespread prosperity to recent immigrants as well as fifth-generation Australians alike and delivered rising real wages without driving people out of work. But Labor put this at risk. We saw productivity collapse. We lost focus on doing things smarter across everything we do because Labor told their friends they could do and they could have whatever they wanted, and they gave their mates want they wanted. Nowhere was this worse than in the public sector where Labor for many years stifled innovation in the interests of its increasingly powerful public sector union officials.
Most economists will tell you that the greatest opportunity for doing things smarter in Australia is in the public sector, but Labor's new left-wing powerbase was never going to take any notice of that. Unprecedented commodity prices and currency levels, which as I said Deloittes tells us delivered an $80 billion windfall, were wasted on frivolous and sometimes deadly government programs. In contrast, the coalition is laying the foundation for a new era of rising incomes and prosperity. We are doing this by asking ourselves how to do things better, by pushing every dollar of government spending harder in health, in education, in welfare and in infrastructure, whilst still continuing to prudently increase our spending in these areas. By not conceding to the siren call of the rent seekers that the ALP listen to, delivering greater prosperity, opportunity and choice for generation after generation of Australians is a noble calling and one the coalition is up to.
This has been for the Prime Minister a year of underachievement. Every government does have the best intentions when they come to power; they have an agenda that they want to see achieved. I am relieved that this Prime Minister has been an underachiever. I am relieved that his Liberal agenda has not successfully passed the Senate and that we have not seen a number of their nasty measures introduced.
I am relieved that he has been an underachiever, and that the Liberal agenda on his plans for education have so far not been achieved. His plan for education would have seen $100,000 degrees introduced into our universities—therefore cutting a generation of younger people or mature-age students from attending university.
And the Prime Minister, as well as his party, is completely delusional if they do not believe that their plan for higher education would not see fewer people enrolling in university. The simple fact that they have put deregulation on the table and are trying so hard to get this legislation through has already seen universities reporting that enrolments are down. People do not want to be saddled with debt for life, and that is what we will see if this government ever achieves its dream for higher education.
I am relieved that the government has also been an underachiever in achieving its plan—its Liberal agenda—for health. Billions of dollars have been cut from our hospitals. This government has also not achieved the watering-down or weakening—basically breaking the back of—universal healthcare by introducing the GP tax. This tax is designed to do one thing. Do not be fooled by the trickery of this government saying that this money will go towards health research. This government is trying to break Medicare by reducing the incentive for GPs to bulk bill. I know, from talking to doctors in my electorate, that it would mean the closure of a number of urgent care centres in regional hospitals in Victoria. Those hospitals are currently bulk billed by doctors—doctors on call, doing a good thing for their community.
So I am relieved that this government has been an underachiever when it comes to the GP tax and they have failed to have that introduced. I am relieved that this government has been an underachiever when it comes to the area of pensions, and that the Senate and the people on this side of the House have continued to block their cruel measures to cut the real wages of pensioners—people who have worked very hard in this country to make sure that we have the prosperity we have today. Yet all we have seen from this government is attacks on their retirement income.
I am relieved that this government has failed to achieve its dream of attacks on young job seekers, forcing them to live on nothing for six months. I am relieved that this government has been an under achiever in forcing young people to live on nothing, yet still expecting them to look for work. I am relieved that this government has again failed in this House to perpetuate a number of the taxes in their shocking budget. What they have achieved—and this does disappoint me—is cuts in jobs. They have cut jobs in the Public Service, making it almost impossible for a number of areas of the Public Service to function. The fact is that if you want a functioning Public Service you need a certain number of public servants in proportion to the people we have in this country, yet we have seen, through their cuts, that parts of our Public Service have started to become dysfunctional.
It is disappointing that they have achieved that. It is disappointing that we have lost so many good, well-paying jobs in this country because of this government's inability to support innovation in industry. We have seen it in Holden and Toyota, to name just two—and SPC. What the government has achieved, through its failure to support SPC, is another independent being elected at the state level in the area of Shepparton. I congratulate the people of Shepparton for calling the coalition out on their inability to support that community.
This government has also achieved the reunification of the Labor movement. Through their constant attacks on working people, and the unions that represent them, they have achieved the reunification of the Labor movement fighting as one. Dan Andrews, who is the new Victorian Labor Premier said, on election night, 'This election was about working people and it was about unions. And the next election will be about working people and it will be about unions and a Labor vision.'
I must say that I was a bit perplexed when I read the title for this MPI—the Prime Minister's year of underachievement. It had me scratching my head. Then I thought, 'Let's look at this from a Labor perspective. Maybe from a Labor perspective we can understand why they have come up with this MPI title.' If you were the Leader of the Opposition you would be thinking to yourself: has anyone been knifed this year? No-one has been knifed so that is an underachievement. Have we had a leadership challenge? No. Another underachievement.
Have we had a game of musical chairs with ministerial portfolios and parliamentary secretaries? No, we have not. So I suppose that is another under achievement. Look at it from the perspective of the Leader of the Opposition. When he was in government, what did he expect, coming up to Christmas. He started off as Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation in 2010. His 2011 Christmas present was the employment and workplace relations portfolio. But 2012 was a bit of a sad Christmas for him because there was no change. But what a year 2013 was! First he became Minister for Education in just enough time to cut $1.2 billion out of education funding. Then he got the top job; it was a good year. The knife went in and it was successful. He became the top person in the Labor ranks.
So if achievement is knifing, we have underachieved. In the area of portfolio changes we have underachieved. What about debt? I suppose you could look at it from a Labor perspective. Labor presided over the fastest deterioration of our debt position in modern history. What have we done? We have tried to repair that. We have tried to restore it. Let's go on. Let's look at free trade agreements. What did Labor do? What was Labor's record of achievement there?
A government member: Lots of trips.
There were lots of trips. I just cannot remember, though, an FTA with Japan. I cannot remember one with South Korea. I cannot remember one with China. I suppose we have underachieved because we have actually got free trade agreements.
Government members interjecting—
I think they probably tried with Norfolk Island but they probably failed there too.
When it comes to immigration, what happened there? Thankfully, there have been no deaths at sea. Thankfully, the boats have stopped. So, when you start to look at it through the Labor prism, you can see why they would say that this has been a year of underachievement.
It's been boring.
Yes, it has been boring. We have actually been doing things. We have been successfully getting the nation's future established. We are getting the nation's future established.
Government members interjecting—
Those opposite can interject all they like, but you do not like the truth. You know that for six years you underachieved. That was all you did. What you see as achievements we do not see as achievements. What we see as achievements over this side is fixing the budget mess you left us. It is getting rid of taxes which hurt this economy—getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax. It was the government that was defining what was occurring with our immigration policy, not people smugglers. We made sure that we were setting up our nation's future by implementing and signing three of the most significant free trade agreements that this country has ever seen. That will redefine our exports into the future. Now, in the next year, we will have white papers into fixing the Federation and fixing the tax system. I give you this warning over there: we have not stopped. We will continue to make sure that we not only ensure that our current living standards remain but that those of our children and our grandchildren remain and progress. (Time expired)
I am really happy to follow my friend, the member for Wannon. I know he is a fun guy, but he is a Victorian fun guy in denial. He was around. He actually witnessed the last election and he is trying to come into this place and say, 'We're standing on our achievements.' I am sure he did not say that too loudly in the Victorian election. When we come into this place, we are often spoken to about truth in politics. If you look at what has been achieved by that mob opposite in the last year, what they have been able to achieve has gone against everything they promised to be able to do for the Australian community.
People in the gallery will probably remember this. On the night before the election, the Prime Minister stared down the barrel of a TV camera, no doubt with his blue tie on, and said, 'I promise not to cut health. I promise not to cut education. There will be no change to the GST. There will be no change to pensions. And there will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' Over the last 12 months, they have delivered change in each of those areas. They have tried to repudiate everything they promised.
If you want to make a promise—this is a lesson to those opposite—and you do not want to keep it, do not do it on national TV, because four million people see it. It was on the ABC. Sometimes these things do unravel on them. Just think about it. Tony was doing all that stuff that night. What if he stood up and said, 'I will introduce an unfair GP tax. I will make you pay $100,000 for a university degree. I will slug motorists with a petrol tax. I will slash family payments. And I will cut $80 billion from schools and hospitals'? I wonder what the reaction would have been the next day for that election. That is precisely what they have done. They have delivered on that. They have brought a budget down to do that. There is only one thing stopping that from being achieved: us and the crossbenchers, whom they cannot convince to follow their unfair budget measures.
There are some achievements that we do need to refer to. This budget has produced change in our economy. Unlike what has been said by those opposite, I do not think these changes are something that you would want to go around crowing about. The unemployment rate has risen from 5.9 to 6.2 per cent since the budget. We have 42,000 more people unemployed. Jobs growth has slowed to around one-third of what it was at the beginning of the year. There has been no creation of full-time jobs. Tragically, youth unemployment has now reached a 13-year high. And what did we hear this week? There has been a lot of crowing over there about the free trade agreement. By the way, we actually support the free trade agreement on this side. But what did we hear earlier this year when the Treasurer goaded Holden to either put up or pack up and leave the shores of Australia? What did we hear last week? He had to make hard decisions to achieve a free trade agreement with Korea. He certainly was not honest with the Australian people about that. He was not honest with the people of Holden, whether they work in South Australia or in the component industry, which proliferates many of our electorates. Thousands of people are losing their jobs because he made a decision on the basis that he never communicated to this parliament and never communicated to the Australian people. That is what they believe they have been able to achieve.
I do not think that Australia can afford that as an achievement. If that is going to be their record, that leaves us in a parlous position for the future—a level of insecurity regarding jobs growth and even investment. We saw the figures only this week of what the investment agencies were saying. We have sluggish growth at the moment, despite the shine that the Treasurer was trying to put on this. The fact is that we have sluggish growth. We need to have some real change in our approach. We need to defend institutions that we hold dear. For instance, only one side of this parliament is standing up for Medicare. Only one side of this parliament is standing up for families earning less than $100,000 a year. Only one side of this parliament is standing up against $100,000 degrees. These are things that we believe are necessary. We believe that, unless we— (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure of mine to be able to stand up today and talk about the Prime Minister's and, indeed, the government's achievements in our first 12 months, because there are many. I know, Deputy Speaker Whiteley, that you are aware of many of them. I am going to start local and talk about the achievements that this Prime Minister and this government have delivered to my local community.
The first one is that the government said they would, and have, delivered infrastructure and delivered the roads for the 21st century. One of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country is the Pacific Highway dual duplication, not least, because of the fatalities that it will save. Of course, it brings an economic boon while being built, and on completion it brings benefits as well. Deputy Speaker, you may be saying, 'Why are you talking about that, because I'm sure the Labor Party had the same position on this piece of infrastructure?' Well, you would be horribly wrong. At the last election the Labor Party put $3 billion on the table to complete the dual duplication. They wanted to walk away from the 80-20 funding split. So what did we, as an incoming government, do? We said that we would maintain the 80 per cent funding split, and that meant we put an extra $2 billion on the table. That will make sure that that duplication gets completed as quickly as possible. One of the first privileges I had as the member for Page was to turn the sod on a new tender at Pimlico Road, which we had announced within weeks of becoming elected, to make this duplication happen as quickly as we could.
There are a few other things I want to talk about, but let me go quickly to the free trade agreements. What do free trade agreements mean to me? What do free trade agreements mean to my community? I have four examples that I want to talk about. The first one is that I have a dairy cooperative in my electorate called Norco. They employ 600 people. They have told me that they are ecstatic about these free trade agreements. They are a well-managed cooperative, and they already export fresh milk to China, which began this year. After the free trade agreement they rang me and said that they were very happy because new markets for them mean increased returns for, not only them, but, very importantly, the dairy farmers in my community.
The biggest employer in my electorate is the Northern Co-operative Meat Company Ltd. They employ 1,100 people. When I was the candidate for Page, the CEO of that company was very concerned and said, 'One of the biggest issues we have is that we are falling behind countries like Brazil and even America, because they have free trade agreements with some of the countries that we export to', and they were falling behind in a price measurement. Their tariffs were getting lowered quicker. You can imagine the joy for their business with the free trade agreement. They said, 'Now our beef prices will be as competitive, if not cheaper, than our competitors to the countries that we export to.' Those 1,100 jobs are made safer in my community because of the good work done by the minister.
But there is more. My electorate is home to the macadamia industry. It employs, directly, hundreds of people and, indirectly, thousands of people. They export to China, and where we have had our tariffs lowered with the free trade agreements, it is going to make that industry more competitive. I am sure you like blueberries, Deputy Speaker. We have a New South Wales farmer of the year, who is a neighbour of mine, who has seen an opportunity. There is a three- or four-month opportunity where we can be the market that supplies China with blueberries. Again, the tariff on blueberries has been lowered and the farmer's investment is looking all the better for it.
You might think the achievements are contained to agriculture, Deputy Speaker, but you would be wrong. Last Friday I was in Ballina and went to see Kimberly Kampers, a manufacturing company, that makes high-end, very high-quality caravans. Guess what they are happy with? The manager said, 'You've just lowered the tariffs for me to sell my product into, not only Asia, but also the Middle East.' He was very excited. So, it is not just agriculture but also manufacturing companies.
There is more. I am finished, Deputy Speaker. I have pages to go.
Order! There is no more, member for Page. The discussion has concluded. I call the Treasurer.
by leave—I rise to make a ministerial statement relating to delivering prosperity and growth for Australia.
The National Accounts released this week reiterate the need for Australia to work hard for future economic growth.
Complacency is our enemy.
After an almost unprecedented 23 consecutive years of economic growth, prosperity will not come our way with a policy to do nothing about our future.
Today I reiterate to the parliament the government's plan for strengthening Australia's economic growth and future prosperity.
Our plan will ensure that the high living standards we enjoy today will continue for future generations.
The government is embarking on a range of structural reforms that will help our economy to be more competitive and more resilient in the face of ongoing global economic change.
Without economic reform, the economy will drift.
Without economic reform, the economy will be more exposed to global volatility.
Without economic reform, our future prosperity is not assured.
Since coming to government just over 12 months ago much economic reform has been achieved.
Some of these decisions are delivering benefits now, and others are providing exciting future opportunities.
To start, we have removed the carbon tax, which is already delivering lower electricity prices and helping ease cost-of-living pressures on everyday household budgets.
And lower energy costs, which lower the costs of production, have helped Australian businesses cope with the downside impact of a stubbornly high Australian dollar.
We have also honoured our pledge to abolish the minerals resource rent tax. The mining tax raised just two per cent of its forecast revenue. But the fiscal mess came about because the previous government committed to new spending as if the tax raised 100 per cent of its forecast revenue.
It was a disaster on many fronts but most significantly it discouraged investment and raised sovereign risk around a sector that already has long-term, in-built, price and construction risks.
So now is the right time to create a more positive investment environment for the mining and resource sector. In the last twelve months we have accelerated planning approvals for over 300 major new projects around Australia that will deliver over $1 trillion of output for our country. Many of these projects in the mining and resources sector will help fuel Australia's future growth.
As we witness the emergence of a new two-billion-people-strong middle class in Asia over the next three decades, what Australia has to potentially export will be in more demand than ever. This is our growth opportunity. By 2030 two-thirds of the global middle class will be residents of the Asia-Pacific region. China currently has a middle class of around 150 million people. This is expected to reach 1 billion people in just 16 years. India's middle class of 200 million people will triple in size over the same period. So during this massive period of unprecedented growth our energy and resources will help build the cities and infrastructure of a rapidly growing India, China, Indonesia and greater Asia.
Regional demand for our hard commodities, such as iron ore, coal, copper, uranium and gold will not diminish. It will grow substantially. And regional demand for our soft commodities such as wheat, beef, lamb, dairy products and the like will also grow substantially. So now is also the time to diversify and strengthen our other export industries to meet head-on the massive growth in demand out of Asia.
In the case of services industries, which represent 70 per cent of the Australian economy, we have massive export growth potential. Australians involved in businesses that deliver services such as aged care, financial services, health care, construction and engineering, logistics and property services all have big growth opportunities right across Asia. Some service industries like education, tourism and hospitality have realigned over time to focus more on the Asian century of growth.
But that does not exclude the need for further reform to cope with new and increased competition. That is why, for example, the government's higher education reforms are essential. They not only deliver better quality education services for Australians but provide our campuses with the opportunity to capitalise on the massive growth across the region. In other areas, such as communications, media and entertainment, and sport and culture, we have sophisticated skills that can meet the increasing demands of the world's new affluent consumers in Asia.
Currently services exports represent only 17 per cent of our exports. New growth in services exports is a blue-sky opportunity for many Australians, particularly those involved in our precious small businesses. That is why this year we have successfully negotiated new free trade agreements with some of our biggest trading partners after years of procrastination. New trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China make our exports more affordable for their citizens and make their exports to us more affordable for our citizens—everyday Australians.
The government recognises that it has been hard for Australians to give away industry subsidies this year. But if we are to successfully convince other countries with much larger markets to make room for Australian exports, then we need to give them the same sort of equal access to our marketplace. At the same time we should never discount our ability to compete with, and beat, the best of the world in advanced manufacturing, software development and medical research. Our innovation is world-class, and with the new streams of capital available, we can commercialise and export to our own great advantage.
As a nation we produce much more than we consume, so breaking down global trade barriers makes us a richer country and it future-proofs our prosperity. In order to facilitate our future we must have productive and efficient infrastructure. This year we have cleaned up the inherited mess of the National Broadband Network. We have quarantined the losses and we are now building the network to ensure that Australians receive affordable and accessible high-speed broadband.
As planned in the budget we are also delivering the largest national infrastructure program in our nation's history. Australians have often said we need a new Snowy Mountains scheme. How many times have we heard that? And it took 25 years to build the original Snowy Mountains scheme. The coalition government in this year's budget is facilitating the delivery of the equivalent of eight new Snowy Mountains schemes over the next ten years with projects like WestConnex, upgrades to the North-South Corridor in Adelaide and the Perth freight link.
Our new spending, and our Asset Recycling Initiative in particular, is driving unprecedented microeconomic reform at the state level. The sober reality of constrained finances is now hitting state and territory governments that are facing massive infrastructure demands. We are facilitating a new wave of construction by rewarding states with new additional funding for infrastructure if they redeploy locked-up capital in existing assets. This will support near-term economic growth and boost productivity over the medium to long term.
By putting government businesses into the productive hands of the private sector, we can deliver both better and greater services to households, and improve the productive capacity of our economy. Of course we have done our part this year by selling Medibank Private, which was the third-largest initial public offering in the world this year, returning $5.7 billion to the budget—$1 billion more than expected—and that has helped to pay for new infrastructure around Australia.
For business to be less constrained we must remove the logjam of regulation. Through dedicated parliamentary repeal days we have removed around 57,000 pages of government regulation and legislation. This saves Australian business around $2 billion a year of red-tape costs.
And at the beginning of this year we inherited nearly 100 announced but unlegislated taxation measures dating back 12 years that created uncertainty and regulatory instability for taxpayers. We have, this year, resolved the mess and removed that backlog of uncertainty.
Yesterday's National Accounts highlight an Australian economy continuing to grow, and an economy transitioning from a mining boom to one with broader based growth. This is an adjustment that we expected.
Going forward, there are reasons to be optimistic about continuing economic growth. Consumers are becoming more confident and are showing early signs of a willingness to spend more. Retail sales figures released today rose for the fifth consecutive month and are now nearly six per cent higher over the year. Consumer confidence data has rebounded to above long-run averages. This is a further positive sign for our retailers going into the Christmas trading season. Businesses are more optimistic about trading conditions, which is a precursor to greater investment and hiring. This is supported by job vacancies data, which are now at a 20-month high. And our export volumes continue to increase. This is reaping the dividends of past investments, not only in the resources sector but also in service industries like tourism and education.
Yes, we face many challenges. We are feeling the headwinds of weaker global demand, which has led to the considerable fall in commodity prices. Iron ore represents around a fifth of our export income. I say again: iron ore represents around a fifth of our export income. And prices have fallen by more than 30 per cent since the budget. We have also seen falls in prices of other major commodities such as thermal coal and wheat. Despite these headwinds, the economy will continue to grow and jobs will continue to be created.
But government revenues have been impacted by a larger-than-anticipated decline in our terms of trade. This means the government will collect less in tax, which makes it harder to pay for existing government services. On top of this we have softer wages growth as the labour market adjusts to the transition underway in our economy. This too has a detrimental impact on revenue.
While these factors have made budget repair harder, they do not alter its necessity. Without the measures announced in this year's budget, deficits were projected for at least the next decade—a total of 16 years of consecutive deficits—leaving Australia vulnerable to external shocks, less equipped to cope with the ageing population, and increasingly reliant on future generations to pay off our debt. Without action every Australian born in 10 years time in 2024 would start life with a government debt of $25,000. This intergenerational buck passing is unfair.
When preparing the budget, the government was very mindful that we should deliver an economically responsible fiscal consolidation, both in size and in timing. The structural budget savings we put forward such as making Medicare and the PBS more sustainable, and welfare distribution fairer, were designed to ensure that the financial impact was relatively small in the short term, but delivered increasing budget repair over the medium to longer term.
We have also delivered a plan that carefully navigates the transition from the resources boom. Australia's incomes and living standards have, over the past decade, been boosted by unprecedented investment and profits in our resources sector. As the resources investment boom abates, the transition of our economy to more balanced sources of growth will depend on demand for goods and services in other sectors. That demand will then attract resources to those sectors, drive investment, and create jobs.
A sustained improvement in public finances is an essential part of these plans. The current economic environment reinforces the importance of getting the budget back in order.
I urge the Labor Party, together with the Senate, to take a more mature and collaborative approach to addressing the challenge of budget repair. This is what Australians want if we are going to be able, as a nation, to afford our future.
There should be less statement and more apology.
The Treasurer has the call.
Blanket opposition and mindless resistance is nothing to boast about if you truly care about Australia's future.
Early next year, the government will be releasing an Intergenerational Report, containing 40 years of budget projections. Like earlier Intergenerational Reports, it will show that as Australia's population ages, labour force participation will fall. Without economic reform this will slow the economy, reduce growth in the government's revenue base and create additional demands on government spending, particularly in health, aged care and pensions, which represent around 10 per cent of government expenditure.
With the terms of trade in decline and population ageing weighing on workforce participation, the key to sustaining growth in living standards is raising Australia's productivity. Over a year ago as a new Treasurer I said:
There could even be periods where living standards actually decline. We don’t want that!
If we want to sustain national income growth at its thirty-year average, there will need to be a very significant lift in productivity growth.
I said that a year ago and I say it again today. The drop in national income recorded in yesterday's National Accounts highlights that this risk is real. All of the government's actions are being taken with these risks in mind.
The government will support Australia's productive potential in 2015 by investing in infrastructure, improving the efficiency of the federation and the taxation and financial systems, and by sustaining our focus on competition and deregulation. We are transforming industry policy to support innovation and entrepreneurship. We have provided more incentives for new start-up business growth with landmark changes to employee share schemes. Enterprise will drive our growth. Business will drive job creation. This combination of investment and structural reforms will support Australia's long-term rate of economic growth.
In 2014 we made great progress in strengthening the Australian economy so that it is able to better cope with external challenges and internal transitions. But more work needs to be done. Reform has no finishing line in the 21st century. With the government's Economic Action Strategy underway we will all be able to achieve what we hope for—that is, a better and more prosperous future for our nation.
If the Treasurer would present his Ministerial Statement.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Bowen speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 18 minutes
Question agreed to.
Madam Speaker, before the member for McMahon does respond to my ministerial statement, with your indulgence, I would like to say a few words.
The Treasurer has the call.
Firstly, can I take the opportunity to wish you and all the parliamentary team a wonderful Christmas, a restful Christmas and a very happy New Year. Can I also express my deep appreciation to my colleagues for all that they have done this year. I know it is hard and in many ways I have been there before.
A government member: You were right up here!
In fact I was right up there. That is where I started in '96, when Peter Costello delivered that budget. But I want to say to you: thank you so much for your support. I deeply appreciate it, and what I appreciate most is that you share with me and the rest of the government the desire to make Australia a better place, and that is a deep desire.
I do want to take the opportunity to wish the member for McMahon a very good Christmas and a happy New Year. He, like me, has young children. He has a very tolerant wife—I am sure Bec is very tolerant—and I certainly wish Grace and Max all the best from Santa Claus. It is a discrete moment that I will never share, but each year I do dress up as Santa Claus for my children.
An honourable member interjecting—
That is right. And I do not know that I can get down the chimney, but I give it a reasonable shot. Can I also take the opportunity to thank my staff, who have done an outstanding job during the year, led by Grant Lovett, who has done a great job. We have chaired the G20 this year with the same number of staff and are trying to have the year of reform and deliver what we have had to deliver this year, and at the same time lead the world in the economic debate. It has been incredibly challenging. It has been a blessing in a sense that most of the G7—all of the G7—are in the Northern Hemisphere. That means that we make calls and do our work for the G20 in the middle of the night, and during the day we do the work that Australians expect domestically.
Finally, I want to take the opportunity to thank my wife and children for what they have been through this year.
A government member: Hear, hear! He has married well.
I did. I am the patron of the 'men who punch above their weight club', which is saying something in my case! They have put up with a hell of a lot in so many different areas. I suspect other treasurers have been in the very same place, but it has been very difficult for them, and I am so grateful for their forbearance.
To the people of Australia, the most important reason why we are all here: I do not doubt the goodwill of the Labor Party, the Independents, the Greens or anyone else. I know deep in our hearts we have a desire to see Australia a better place, to see our nation more prosperous and we are all going to work in that direction. I really hope that in 2015 Australia is an even better nation than the best dreams of the best Australians. I have absolute confidence that Australia's future is better right now than at any time during my lifetime, and that everyone will continue to work as hard as they possibly can to make sure that dream comes through. Thank you very much.
On indulgence, in the same vein as the Treasurer, can I also wish him all the very best for Christmas and his family: Melissa, Xavier, Adelaide and Ignatius. The role of the Treasurer is an onerous one, and one which takes its toll on the incumbent and their family, and I wish them a restful break because they do deserve it. They do put up with a lot. I know the Treasurer will take this in the vein in which I say this at Christmas: I agree with him; he did marry well. In fact, I regard Melissa as the economic brains of the outfit! She is a very fine judge, and I hope he takes her advice regularly.
He mentioned that he punches above his weight. I will share with the House a little secret: in the lead-up to the last election we conducted a focus group and the focus group was shown a picture of my family, and one of the voters noted that I was punching above my weight as well in that particular instance. The Treasurer and I have from time to time run into each other on the weekends with our families in Sydney at various attractions. I know he has a beautiful family and I know they would be looking forward to a very nice break.
Can I, on the behalf of the opposition, thank the public servants of the Treasury portfolio for their work for the government of the day—the Treasury itself, ASIC, APRA, ACCC, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Royal Australian Mint and other Treasury portfolio agencies. They are all very fine public servants, and it has been a big year with Australia hosting the G20. The Treasury was one of the lead agencies and, in terms of the preparation which occurred under both governments—the Gillard-Rudd government and the Abbott government—they did Australia proud.
Can I particularly wish the outgoing Treasury Secretary, Dr Parkinson, all the very best. Also, on a personal note there is one other very senior Treasury officer who has left since my time as Treasurer—David Gruen, who has gone to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I wish him the very best. I know he has not retired, but I do wish him the very best.
I thank my shadow Treasury team in parliament: the members for Fraser, Oxley and Chifley—a very fine team, thank you for your support over the year. Can I thank all my parliamentary colleagues, but particularly members of the shadow Treasury team; my friend the Manager of Opposition Business and shadow Minister for Finance, with whom of course I work very closely; and the other members of the leadership team in the opposition.
Of course, we all point out that our own staff make our lives tolerable. Can I thank my staff led by my chief of staff James Cullen. This year is our 10th anniversary together for James Cullen and I. I did remark that we might want to mark that by a weekend away, but we did not get around to that. He has been with me for 10 years and he is now my chief of staff, and a better friend or more loyal staff member I could not have ever wished for. Also, I thank Hugh Hartigan, Alistair Beasley and Claire Brosnan in my electorate office, and Carole Field, Ninos Aaron, Thomas McCudden, Theresa Alphonse and Raj Kumar.
Also, as others have done, I thank the people who make this people work—the attendants, the cleaners who work through the night and all the security who are particularly under pressure in this environment. They carry out their role with great humour but very effectively. I also think the Comcar drivers, particularly in my case John Stikovic, and even John Chapman, who insists on playing the South Sydney theme song every time I get in the car! Madam Speaker, he may do the same for you!
Even to Victorians!
Even to Victorians! I thank all who have been involved in the body politic over the last 12 months. We are a robust debating chamber and a robust body politic, but we are not meant to be an echo chamber. Australia's democracy is a contest of ideas, one we all participate in willingly and one for which I think Australia is the better. Merry Christmas to you, Madam Speaker, and may you have a very good break as well.
by leave—I will now start my response to the Treasurer. The Treasurer and I agree on one thing: Australia's 24 years of uninterrupted economic growth should be celebrated and, even more importantly, it should be protected. It is a remarkable achievement—the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth for any developed country in the history of the world. Many people are responsible for it, but it is our responsibility to ensure it continues. I agree with the Treasurer that it is not inevitable that it will continue. Vigilance and reform are necessary. We agree on the end: continuing those 24 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Economic growth lifts people out of poverty and turns aspiration into reality. But we disagree on the method.
The Treasurer says the way to protect our economic growth record and our living standards is to embrace his budget, his budget which, to our way of thinking, is a fundamentally unfair document. He effectively says that the way to protect Australia's living standards is to attack Australia's living standards through the budget. The Treasurer's and the government's approach is that unfairness and regressive policies are the basis for reform and that reform must be unfair. This is where we differ.
The Treasurer, with due respect, has not learnt the lessons of history. The most successful reforming period in Australia's economic history was that period between 1983 and 1996. Never before had Australia been asked to embrace so much economic change—so much reform and so much change—and fairness was at its core. The talisman of the Hawke and Keating governments was restraint with equity. Equity was important. It was important for reasons of justice, but it was also important because it enabled Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating to make the case for reform, to explain to the Australian people that it was in the best interests of everybody to reform. If their reform package had been fundamentally unfair, it would have failed and Australia would have been worse off. That is the difference in approach between this side of the House and that side of the House.
We embrace economic reform. We do not run from it; we embrace it. We acknowledge that it is necessary to ensure ongoing growth, but we reject completely and utterly economic reform based on unfairness. At the core of the budget is the Treasurer's philosophy, which he shared with the House and with the people on budget night, dividing Australians into 'lifters' and 'leaners'. This is, again, where we differ. The way to make the case for reform is not to divide Australia down the middle. The way to make the case for reform is not to say, 'Some Australians deserve to benefit from economic growth and others do not.' This is what he was doing when he announced that the government would attempt to introduce unfair indexation for Australia's aged pensioners. This is what he was doing when he announced that he would take away the family tax benefit for children over six. This is what he was doing when he announced that the government believed it was necessary to create an underclass by taking people under 30 off the Newstart allowance. This is what the government were doing when they announced that low-income earners would receive zero tax support for saving for their future through superannuation. These are at the core of the government's philosophy and approach.
It was a regrettable thing for the Treasurer to divide Australia into lifters and leaners because, as has been said, what actually unites Australians is much greater than what divides us. We on this side of the House believe in inclusive growth. By that we mean that every Australian should be able to contribute to growth and every single Australian should benefit from economic growth. We do not divide Australians into lifters and leaners.
The Treasurer was not being original when he coined this phrase. He adopted the phrase from another politician. That politician was the vice-presidential candidate of the Republican Party, a Tea Party adherent who said that America was divided into 'makers' and 'takers'. That comment was adapted by the Treasurer. In fairness, that candidate for the vice-presidency later said that that was a mistake. He withdrew that statement. He was campaigning and an American citizen went up to him and asked, 'Can you explain to me who the takers are? Is it my aged pensioner mother who worked her whole life and is now relying on the United States federal government for the age pension? Is she a taker?' He reflected on that and he decided that that constituent, that United States citizen, was right and that he should not have said that. He withdrew it. He recanted it. He did so very explicitly and very deliberately. I say to the Treasurer that he, too, should recant and withdraw that statement about lifters and leaners in Australia. He should acknowledge that Australians do not need a Treasurer who divides them but one who unites them.
The Treasurer talked of economic growth. As I said in my opening remarks, we on this side of the House do not run from economic growth; we embrace it. We are the party of economic growth. Economic growth lifts people from poverty into prosperity. That is what drives the Labor Party. We will embrace things which promote economic growth and we will criticise things which take away from economic growth. We say creating an Australia which is more fundamentally unfair does not promote growth but diminishes growth and will in the long run be seen as a threat to growth. The government should recognise the same.
We talk of long-term economic growth. Let us focus on those matters in which the Treasurer is eating away at those long-term creators of economic growth. Let us focus in particular on education and innovation. Despite claims to the contrary, the budget contained $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education—$28 billion in education.
What is the long-term impact on economic growth of this? On this side of the House we believe that every Australian, regardless of their parents' wealth, regardless of their location around Australia, should have the capacity to grow and to be whatever they wish to be, to their full and maximum potential. We believe that as a matter of fundamental social justice. But we also believe it is very good economic policy, because we believe that if those young people are able to grow to be everything they can be, then Australia's economy as a whole will be better off. And I am not the only one who thinks that. For example, there are studies showing that measures to increase school retention rates will result in an additional annual taxation receipt for the Commonwealth of $2.3 billion, by 2040. Or, the effective increase in school and training retention rates amongst 15 to 24 year-olds from the current 80 per cent mark to around 90 per cent would have the same positive impact on the economy as increasing Australia's total migrant intake by 180,000 over the period to 2040. It would have a similar economic impact as increasing workforce participation rates of older workers by 6.6 percentage points, from nearly 53 per cent to nearly 60 per cent. And it would boost annual GDP by 1.1 per cent, the equivalent of $9.2 billion in today's figures.
This is the transformational, generational impact of an investment in education. Again there is a difference here. We see every dollar spent on education in this nation as an investment. Every single dollar. We see it as an investment in Australia's economic future, as well as the future of those individuals.
Let's look for a moment at the issue of skills and vocational education and training. It is another area that has been cut by this Treasurer and this government. This is an area where we can make a huge difference for individuals, their careers and their lives, and for the Australian economy. For example, closing the equity gap between people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and the general population, through vocational education and training, is estimated to increase real GDP by $3.9 billion by 2020, and in doing so will generate over 37,000 full-time equivalent jobs. That is an investment in the future. It is good for Australia's economy. Or, closing the equity gap between the general population and Indigenous people and people with a disability, through vocational education and training, is estimated to increase real GDP by $12.12 billion by 2020, and to generate 118,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This is the transformational opportunity of vocational education and training for our nation, one being eaten away by the short-sighted cuts of the Liberal Party and National Party in office. This is what we talk about when we say that this is a budget that is anti economic growth. I accept the intentions of the Treasurer when he talks about the need for economic growth, but I say to him that this government's actions eat away at the future sources of economic growth.
Then we come to innovation, that other great source of economic growth for Australia into the future. This is a budget that has cut the CSIRO funding, and just in the last fortnight we are seeing the impact of that cut—a cut in the CSIRO staffing levels that is very dramatic and will do Australia harm for many years to come.
We all know that science and research is primarily driven by the private sector, as it should be. But what governments do is important. We know that the CSIRO invented Wi-Fi. We know that the equivalent authorities and agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom were integral to promoting the internet and GPS. But we know that it is much less likely to happen in the future with these cuts.
We have seen many organisations abolished. The Treasurer boasted in his economic statement about the number of government organisations that have been abolished. Several of them are in the innovation, research and commercialisation space. That is not a matter for boasting. That is a matter for disappointment, and frankly a matter for shame. Of all the matters in the budget we are critical of—and they are many and varied—these are perhaps the most short-sighted and, frankly, dumbest cuts of all, because Australia will pay a price for many years to come.
I want to talk about the impact on economic growth in the shorter term of this government's economic policies, and the budget in particular. In his ministerial statement, the Treasurer again talked about confidence. Confidence is something we should talk about, because confidence has been smashed by this budget. Consumer confidence fell by seven percentage points in the month following the budget. It is 13 per cent lower than it was at the time of the last election. We were promised an adrenaline charge and we have had the opposite. That is on the Westpac figures. The Treasurer prefers to use the ANZ figures. So let's use the ANZ figures. The ANZ figures are not seasonally adjusted, but I am happy to use them if the Treasurer wants to use them. That is fine with me. The yearly average on the index is 111.4 for this year. The index for the last 10 years is an average of 115.2, and for the last 15 years it is 116.4.
And that includes the GFC.
That is right. That includes the GFC. It is not correct to say that consumer confidence has returned to its long-term average, as the Treasurer claims. In fact, it is at its equal lowest level, and it is lower than it has been at any time, putting aside the GFC, since 1993.
This is about the budget. It is about the Treasurer's rhetoric, which is ill-judged and irresponsible. The Treasurer's rhetoric in the lead-up to the budget was talking up a budget crisis, and the Australian people listened, as they do when a Treasurer speaks, and they put away their wallets, and Australian businesses have paid the price for the Treasurer's ill-judged rhetoric.
Australian families have paid the price for the Treasurer's ill-judged rhetoric and his actions in the lead-up to the budget and since. The Australian people and Australian consumers have also responded to the mixed messages from the government—the lack of an economic strategy, the lack of an economic narrative. One day we are told: 'It is fine and that the budget is 75 per cent passed. What are you worried about? Everything is dandy.' The next day we hear: 'We have a crisis on our hands because of that terrible Labor Party, standing up for what they believe in—standing up for fairness. How dare they! They are blocking our budget.' Can Australian consumers be forgiven for being confused? If the Treasurer was competent, the Australian people would be confident. But he is not, and they are not. This is the impact of this government on consumer confidence, and consumer confidence has a big impact on business activity.
The people who analyse these figures have been very clear about what has caused this reduction in consumer confidence. Let us have another look at the Westpac survey. Westpac's chief economist Bill Evans said in November in relation to the November results: 'This is an unsurprising but still disappointing result.' It is unsurprising because the Australian people and the commentators have become used to this government. Clearly this is sheeted home directly to the budget. I note that in July a record 74 per cent of those surveyed recall news on budget and taxation—the highest recall rate of the budget in the history of the survey— and 74 per cent said this was leading to their reduction in confidence. They went on to say that the recollections were extremely unfavourable and were likely to remain that way. Guess what? Later on there was another survey which was the second worst in relation to negative recall on the budget. They have got some achievements and they have got some records—the worst and second worst when it comes to the impact on consumer confidence of this budget. It is the result of this government's approach.
We do have a different plan for Australia; we do have a different vision for Australia. We say very clearly that the budget should be on a credible path back to surplus. We would support sensible measures to return the budget to surplus, as we have supported more than $20 billion worth of savings through this House and the other house. We have supported it and we would support it. We will support measures that are fair, but we will never support measures that unfair because they are bad for Australian families and bad for the economy and we will not stand for it. We believe in economic reform with equity at its core, and economic reform with equity at its core is better for the nation, as well as being better for Australian families. We will embrace the age of entrepreneurialism; we will embrace innovation. We will participate in that debate. The competitiveness report released by the government was a damp squib of a report—a report which was full of excuses and government announcements, which we welcomed as far as they went—it was a long time coming and disappointing when it was released. We will support and have supported those measures but we will point out that these measures go nowhere near far enough when taken against the $113 million of cuts to the CSIRO, the 1391 jobs lost from CSIRO, a 21.5 per cent reduction in the workforce. These are not small numbers—21.5 per cent reduction in the workforce of the CSIRO that Australia's economic growth rate will pay a price for for many years to come.
As we end this parliamentary year, let there be no doubt: the Labor Party will always be the party of economic growth. We believe in it; we will promote it; and in government we will deliver it. We will deliver it for the best interests of all Australians. We will not choose lifters and leaners; we will say every Australian should benefit from economic growth and every Australian should be encouraged to contribute to economic growth to the best of their ability and capacity. That will be the approach of a Shorten Labor government; that will be the contest of ideas undertaken in this chamber next year and across the nation. It is a contest of ideas that we intend to participate in and win.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I present the corrigendum to the committee's report, entitled TAFE: An Australian Asset, which was presented on 24 November 2014.
I move:
That the amendments be considered immediately.
Question agreed to.
The question then is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
If there is any legislation or area of it that shows the difference between this side of the parliament and the other side of the parliament, it is legislation that deals with fair work. We have on this side of the parliament a group of members who are committed to fairness, to equity and to ensuring that all Australians have a fair go, whereas those on the side of the parliament, who, as we just heard from the shadow Treasurer, see people as lifters and leaners. I hate to say it, but those on the government benches tend to think of workers as just being leaners. Madam Deputy Speaker—
No. I might be a possible Treasurer but I am not a deputy speaker.
My apologies, Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to call you 'Deputy Speaker'. There is no piece of legislation that demonstrates the difference more between this side of the House and the other side of the House than legislation that deals with workers or industrial relations—and this is one such a piece of legislation. We heard the Treasurer today make a presentation on the economy to this parliament. The shadow Treasurer, in responding to it, highlighted the fact that we on this side of the House do not agree with the Treasurer's categorisation and stereotyping of the Australian people as 'lifters and leaners'. The Treasurer told the Australian people that living standards may fall. I believe that the Treasurer would like to see living standards fall, with workers getting less, having poorer benefits and being the ones who have to carry this government on its back.
The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 amends the Fair Work Act by proposing an additional approval requirement for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield agreements. The requirement is that the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the new productivity improvements in the workplace are discussed during the bargaining process. All of the existing agreement approval requirements under the Fair Work Act will be retained. This is extra red tape. It is something that will obviously not work and that is designed to ensure that there really is no genuine consultation.
It is argued that the bill will provide guidance and ensure greater transparency regarding the circumstances in which a protected action ballot can be made. But, in actual fact, I believe that it provides for less transparency, because currently the Fair Work Commission must make a protected action ballot order if it is satisfied that an application has been made and the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. The amendment proposal requires that the FWC have regard to a range of non-exhaustive factors to guide its assessment of whether an application for an order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Further, it provides that the FWC must not make a protected action ballot order where it is satisfied that the claim of the applicants for the order is manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of that workplace. Madam Speaker, I ask you: how can the FWC assess this?
I put on the record that this legislation is another example of a broken election promise. This government says one thing before the election and does a totally different thing after the election. This bill is inconsistent with what the Abbott government stated before the election. It is a bill that is poorly constructed. It is bad policy. It is something that will not be enforceable. It is poorly worded. And it will result in no change, other than the addition of red tape, inconsistency and expense. It is a brazen attack on workers' democratic right to take protected industrial action. We have seen this with every piece of industrial relations legislation proposed by opposite that comes through this parliament. It is packaged as one thing but in actual fact is designed to be an attack on workers' rights. It is designed to be an attack on workers' conditions. It is designed to be an attack on workers' pay. Those on the other side of this House need to come to terms with the fact that Australian industry and the Australian economy will operate best when there is consultation and agreement between all parties. It is not about squashing workers and making sure that they are treated in a way that will lead to—as the Treasurer highlighted this week—falling living standards because this government is attacking their wages.
The Treasurer really needs to get out into the real world. It is all very well asking Australians to spend more; but, if he is attacking their wages, how can they do that if their wages are falling? Figures have been released this week showing that the cost of living has increased, Australians are buying less with their money and that real wages have fallen. So I see this as just another attack on workers. It is ambiguous and misunderstands the key elements of our workplace relations system and reads exactly like a bill would if the minister had no idea and was frustrated that he had passed exactly zero of the five bills he had introduced prior to this one. I believe that the minister really does not understand workplace relations; but, if he does, he just sees it as a way to suppress wages and conditions.
At the start of my contribution to this debate, I mentioned that this was just another broken promise. I would just like to highlight that, because before the election the government was saying that there would be no changes to workers' wages and conditions and that they support workers' wages and conditions. Every single time a piece of industrial relations legislation has come before this parliament, we have seen the government attacking it.
If the government is serious about addressing productivity, it should have unions and managers or employers involved in the process. This legislation is really about unions. It is about considering how to improve productivity by only talking to one part of the equation. I believe, as I think those of us on this side of the House do, that you get the best outcome in any sort of industrial relations discussions if you have got both the employer and the employee sitting down together and working it out; you do not have things dictated by one side of the equation.
I really think that the government misses out on what workplace relations is about. It is opting for this new requirement, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of bargaining for, and eventually completing, an enterprise agreement. The government's proposal does nothing whatsoever except adding increased costs and red tape and creating uncertainty. If the government can explain to the Australian people how uncertainty is going to increase productivity, I would be interested to listen to that. That is because my understanding is that where uncertainty exists you are going to have less economic activity and you are going to have lower productivity.
This government is driven by ideology. It really has no commitment to coming to terms with a real solution, actually increasing productivity and recognising that workers have rights. The government's intention is not actually to deal with productivity, but instead to continue to crusade against workers by imposing requirements on unions, while providing options for employers to avoid the requirements. It is about pushing real wages down further and about making workers the lifters; then those that are on the other side of the equation can just sit back and be the leaners—not that the Treasurer would like to put that to the Australian people. There is also a risk, because of the fact that this bill is so poorly constructed, that the bill could be used as a veto power by employers. In actual fact, it will be impossible to actually get to a situation where there can be any agreement on a matter.
By amending section 443 in the way the government has, it has imposed a different and higher standard test on unions to take protected industrial action over and above the test in section 413, which employers are subject to in the case of employer lockouts. That is anything but fair. It is imperative in any piece of legislation that it should be inherently fair. Unfortunately, it is not fair in this legislation. The government said before the election that workers and businesses must be genuine in their attempts to bargain so that realistic improvements in employment conditions can occur for everyone. Well, this is a one-sided piece of legislation that is not about ensuring that improvements in employment conditions and the workplace can occur for everyone. It is about a very one-sided approach and a very unfair approach to workplace relations.
I am interested to hear from the government about what will happen if an employer stalls the bargaining. What is the solution there? How will that be dealt with? I have heard nothing in any of the contributions from those opposite to allay fears that I have that this will be a scenario which will be manifestly bad for workers. The government has introduced a new provision that means that the Fair Work Commission must not take protective action ballots if it is satisfied that the applicant's claim or claims are manifestly excessive and if, having regard to conditions of the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates, it would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of the workplace. The decision as to what will improve and decrease productivity in the workplace can be very subjective. For instance, I believe undertaking a training course increases the productivity of workers because they are better skilled and have better knowledge, but the employer might see that that is time when workers are absent from the workplace.
I have to say that this is very, very poor legislation. It will do nothing to improve productivity in this country. Rather, it is legislation that was introduced into this parliament by zealots on the other side of this House who are all about inflicting pain on workers and more about ensuring that employers have the final say when it comes to anything in relation to the workplace, rather than through consultation and agreement. (Time expired)
Just before the member for Shortland goes, I will just tell her a couple of things about this bill. This bill will is basically based on our coalition paper of May 2013. Now, I am not the smartest person in this House, but I think May 2013 was actually before September 2013, which was when the election was. If we got it out and about there, it qualifies as something that we said before the election. The member for Shortland also suggested that this bill will give an employer a veto to frustrate bargaining by refusing to talk about productivity—that is simply false. This bill does not give an employer or employees a veto power. The good faith bargaining framework will apply to productivity discussions in the same way that it applies to other discussions in all forms of bargaining. If any particular party does not engage in the bargaining process, good faith orders may be available. The bill does not alter that at all. The member for Shortland, who was begging us for information, has now walked out of the chamber. I hope she gets the Hansard and reads these things here. This bill does not make it more or less likely that the bargaining will be deadlocked. All the bill does is require the parties to discuss productivity. It does not require agreement or consensus to be reached.
Fair dinkum! That was 15 minutes I will never get back in my life. I would rather have cigarettes put out on my eyes than sit through that again!
This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 by promoting harmonious and productive enterprise bargaining. This bill will require discussions about improving workplace productivity to occur during enterprise bargaining. Fancy that, when we are talking about wages increases, someone from a company or the employees might actually want to find out how we are going to increase productivity, how we are going to improve productivity and therefore how the company is going to make more money. This bill will ensure that applicants for protected action ballots have first engaged in genuine and meaningful talks and that the claims that are being advanced are not unrealistic. This bill will require the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that productivity improvements were at least discussed during the enterprise bargaining process before it can be agreed upon. This bill backs the coalition's policy of having fair and productive workplaces.
In May 2013, the coalition launched its paper, The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws, as part of our election commitment—that was before the election. Our policy states:
Our policy will help make Australian workplaces even better, by improving the Fair Work laws to provide a stable, fair and prosperous future for all.
The coalition believe in reward for effort—and shouldn't we all believe in that? We believe in protecting people's jobs. The member for Shortland is propagating this idea that we are out there with the twirly end of a moustache, trying to be Dick Dastardly and ruin everyone's Christmas and kill people's jobs off so that we can be pure evil. It is just a ridiculous notion. But, at the same time, the coalition understand the need for healthy businesses to create opportunities for workers to get ahead and to ensure that nobody is left behind. I have some more things to say about this later on. We have already introduced a range of reforms—the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.
As it currently stands, there is no requirement in the Fair Work Act that productivity be discussed in negotiating an EBA. Can you believe that: currently, you do not even have to discuss productivity! This change will ensure that the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that productivity improvements were discussed during the EBA discussions. No official agreement has to be met, but at least a discussion about improving productivity can take place as part of the bargaining. The Fair Work Act will also require a secret ballot of employees to be conducted before the protected industrial action can take place. This action must, of course, be approved by the Fair Work Commission. The commission must now be satisfied that the applicant has been 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement'. This is not actually defined in the Fair Work Act.
This bill will provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Fair Work Commission must factor into discussions. The amendments will also provide that the Fair Work Commission must not authorise a protected union ballot, if it is satisfied the claims over industrial action are excessive or would have made an adverse impact on workplace productivity. These are just common sense changes. Industrial action should not be the first resort; it should the last resort option after negotiations have taken place.
We have recently seen reports of protected action ballot orders made and protected industry action threatened in pursuit of claims that would increase the salary package for marine engineers in Port Hedland—I heard the member for Corangamite talking about this—by around 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of the existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees work only six months of the year on a week-on week-off roster. That is an extreme and very obvious example, but these things play out in everyone's workplace.
Similar irresponsible conduct was being shown where industrial action was taken by the MUA and the MUA marine operators in the offshore oil and gas sector in Western Australia in 2010. These negotiations resulted in 30 per cent wage increases in just under four years with no productivity benefits at all, following industrial action being taken. Just months following this case, the MUA brought Australian ports to a halt in pursuit of a $46,000 wage increase for workers already earning over $100,000 for 185 work days per year.
In February 2014, Martin Ferguson, the former resources minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said:
We must improve our productivity and reduce the costs of doing business in Australia.
… … …
High labour costs and low productivity are an unsustainable mix. And therefore – elements of the Fair Work Act must be looked at.
To me, that is just common sense. I do not know why we are having this argument. That is just common sense. Further, he said:
A workplace relations system that drives investment to other countries is in nobody’s interest; certainly not those union members and their families who will be bargaining themselves out of a future.
Now, of course, unions would argue that these changes will make it harder for industrial action to take place. But these measures are common sense. Surely, both employer and employee would agree that both sides need to mediate before industrial action occurs? Unions are saying that these changes will make applications for protected ballots more costly, but this cost is only towards the union. Overall, these proposals will not change employee's rights to take protected industrial action during bargaining.
These amendments are the last of our election commitment to improve the Fair Work laws. Only the coalition understands that a nation's wealth is produced by businesses, not by people and not by government. Business must make a profit; business is not a charity. You must make a profit to keep on employing and paying people.
The government is serious about providing opportunities for business in Australia—to be free of regulation, free to employ and free to prosper. These reforms will help build Australia's prosperity for future generations to come.
I think the Kelly report came out and said that wages should not be correlated with the profitability of a firm. In the first 10 years of our federation we decided then, no matter what the profitability of the firm, that we would be a high-wage country. You can have high wages if you have low input costs and high productivity. In the last parliament we installed the carbon tax, which made our input costs go through the roof. Excessive wage demands make your input costs go through the roof. Another issue is productivity. If either of those two goes out the window, then you lose money. If you have high input costs and lower productivity, business goes elsewhere. It is that simple: we are a high-wage nation. We have new challenges, new and massive opportunities to deliver into the Asian century. Productivity is the key to this. We have to work smarter, smoother and be more flexible.
We have signed free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. Minister Robb and Minister Bishop are going all over the place to get these things organised so that we can get to the table. Free trade agreements do not deliver the goods. But they get you a seat at the table, to work. It gives you an opportunity to present and impress. What you then have to do is deliver. It is pointless Minister Robb and Minister Bishop going around the world and signing these things if Australians will not work together. So we have to be productive, we have to be smarter and more fluid in the way we do things. That comes down to individual workplaces. Take the MUA's door completely out of it and bring it down to your own workplace, your own office and ask: are we doing everything we can?
I will tell you a quick story. I used to have an auction centre. I did an auction one night and Michael Klim, the 100-metre swimmer, and Grant Hackett were there. I said, 'It's very funny that you should be here at this time because, when I open my shed in the morning'—Grant Hackett's best time was about 15 minutes in those days—'it takes about 15 minutes to open it and, in the afternoon when it is time to go home, they beat Michael Klim's record, by shutting the shed in less than 50 seconds.' It is about being productive, about getting to work and when you are at work starting at eight, not just getting to work at eight.
We have an opportunity to diversify. We are a service centre of excellence and 80 per cent of our economy is service based, yet it only represents 15 per cent of our exports. We must be more competitive in this space, we must be more flexible and this legislation is just common sense. It really is just common sense. So, with those few words, I would just like to thank the House and say that I back this bill 100 per cent.
Debate adjourned.
Madam Speaker, it would be important to update the House on the situation involving the Senate and bring some closure to today's proceedings. The Senate have decided to continue to debate the migration bill before the Senate until 11 pm. They have decided to suspend at 11 pm, which is obviously disappointing. Through no fault of the manager of opposition business or the chief whip, the Labor senators in the other house are adding speakers to the list, which some would describe as a filibuster, on the second reading. They are yet to get to the committee stage. They might well get to the committee stage tonight; they might not. But, regardless of that, they will finish at 11 pm.
Even if they have completed all stages of that bill by 11 tonight, it will take around four hours to be transmitted back to the House of Representatives. The view of the government is that keeping members here until 3 am tomorrow is not a sensible course to adopt. We have had very frank discussions with the opposition about this matter and the member for Watson shares my view about this.
My view is that we will suspend the sitting now, which will give members certainty about the rest of the evening. They can go about their business, as they see fit. We will plan to resume at 8 am tomorrow, which I have agreed with the member for Watson, assuming that the Senate has completed all stages of that bill and it has been transmitted to the House of Representatives, which should be enough time. At that stage, assuming we have a reasonably quick discussion and votes on the migration bill, which, again, I have agreed with the member for Watson would be advantageous, most members will then be able to get to their planes and get home at a reasonable time, including the Western Australian, Northern Territory and north Queensland members, which I think is the way we should proceed. So, therefore, I am indicating that the House will suspend until tomorrow morning at eight. The member for Watson has indicated he will not come into the House, but I can say that he agrees with that course of events.
In the light of the comments of the Leader of the House, indicating agreement with the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, I declare the sitting of this House suspended till 8 am tomorrow or until the ringing of the bells.
Proceedings suspended from 17:37 to 0800
Friday, 5 December 2014
The Senate informs the House of Representatives that, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senator Wang has been appointed as a participating member of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Fund Establishment.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The question is that amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [08:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Question agreed to.
In adjourning the House I thank my colleagues, from both sides of the House, for their forbearance in remaining today. There are not as many members of the opposition, but certainly there are members of the government here in huge numbers to support the minister and the government. I also thank the Senate for not sitting this morning or we would still be here past this time. In wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year—you particularly, Madam Speaker—I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 08:12
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 9:31.
I rise today to express a number of concerns on behalf of the Vietnamese Community in Australia. This organisation, which represents the ex-patriot Vietnamese community, is deeply concerned about the recent tensions in the South China Sea, Vietnam's participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the ongoing persecution of political activists in Vietnam and to even some in Australia. Mr Tri Vo, President of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, and Mr Bon Van-Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in Australia Victoria Chapter, are deeply concerned that the People's Republic of China has heightened the risk of war in South-East Asia by its latest unilateral and provocative installation in mid-2014 of its oil rigs within Vietnam's exclusive economic zone as part of China's unsubstantiated 9 dash line claim of more than 90 per cent of the Bien Dong, which is the East Sea—aka the South China Sea—by China.
The Vietnamese Community in Australia encourages the Australian government and all Asia-Pacific nations to request all claimants to settle their disputes through peaceful negotiations in accordance with international laws, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and support the negotiations between the PRC and ASEAN for a binding code of conduct to replace the non-binding 2002 Declaration of Conduct.
Over 10,000 members of the Vietnamese Community in Australia are concerned about China flexing its military muscle in the South China Sea around the pristine reef that is part of the disputed Spratly Islands chain claimed by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei. The Vietnamese Community in Australia is calling for restraint and for China to discontinue its plans of filling in the reef's lagoon in order to create an island as a way of being able to fully claim the area in the future and use it for military purposes.
The Vietnamese Community in Australia also believes that conditions should be imposed on Vietnam before it can participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership aims to enhance trade and investment among the 12 TPP partner countries to promote innovation, economic growth and development, and to support the creation and retention of jobs. The total GDP of TPP members is 37.5 per cent of global GDP and the total population is about 800 million people.
Vietnam will be one of the countries that will benefit the most from being a member of the TPP because it could export more to nations such as the United States of America. However, according to the Vietnamese Community in Australia, the Vietnamese authorities must do the following things before being a permanent partner of TPP. They must release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. They must ensure the right of the Vietnamese people to have the freedom to establish independent unions, and permit organisation of strikes if necessary. They must ensure the right of the Vietnamese people to have the freedom to establish independent organisations and associations to serve the interests of groups and individual and they must ensure the right of the Vietnamese people to freely practise their religious beliefs. These matters have been raised by the Vietnamese Community in Australia, and I commend them for their work on behalf of the Vietnamese community.
I rise in this three-minute statement to associate myself with those comments being made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the House. I think a way that we can demonstrate our bipartisanship and a sense of Christmas spirit, as we lead to Christmas, is to remember that we are all here in this place to do the right thing and the best thing by people who send us here. I think, at times, it is important we reflect on the things that really do unite us, rather than sometimes the things that might divide us. On behalf of my constituency, I want to associate myself and my constituency with the comments of both sides of the House and Madam Speaker.
It has been a very difficult year in my electorate, particularly with many being drought declared since early 2013. As we lead up to Christmas this year, I want the people of my constituency—whether on the land, whether they are small businesses in the country towns, whether they are the volunteers out there or charities helping so many of those communities right now—to know that they are not alone. This parliament has had a responsibility to respond, as have state parliaments. I want to let them know that they are not alone. I am thinking of them, as I have throughout the year. I can assure them that I can only hope that before we get the Christmas we see the heavens open up and bring what is going to help enormously—much-needed rain.
I want to say, also, that as we lead up to Christmas we should never lose sight of the true meaning of Christmas. We celebrate the birth of Christ, which gives so many of us the opportunity to reflect on the meaning of Christmas. It is for families and friends, but never let us forget that the Christmas story is one that, I think, helps the nation. It helps me. It certainly guides me with a moral and a spiritual compass. It helps us and it helps me make those decisions and form opinions based on the reason we have Christmas. It is important that we do not just see it as another holiday, but a time for reflection, and a celebration of the birth of Christ 2015 years ago.
I want to say thank you to all of those who are so often working—volunteers, emergency workers, our troops and nurses—and all of those who will be on standby. When we are enjoying Christmas lunch or dinner with our family and friends, they will be out there making sure that the electricity is still there. They will be out there making sure that our roads are safe. They will be there working in hospitals, looking after the sick and those not so well off. I do remember them and it is time that we say, 'Have a happy Christmas,' to all of them. When we come back refreshed in the new year, a new resolution is to make sure that we do it for the best and right interest on behalf of all Australians. I thank the chamber.
Thank you for those kind words, Deputy Speaker. I call the member for Lingiari. I would like to put on the record my thanks to you for your bipartisan support earlier this week when we were talking about Cyclone Tracy.
Can I thank the Deputy Speaker, the member for Maranoa—he is a good bloke. I want to concur with his comments and observations about the workings of this place, and how we should respect one another. I thank you very much and wish everyone in this place, and your families, a Merry Christmas.
I want to briefly talk about the commemorative events held on the Cocos Islands to commemorate the mighty battle between HMAS Sydney and SMS Emden. The commemorative events were held on the 8 and 9 November 2014, 100 years to the day since that battle where 134 German lives were lost and four Australian lives. The official events were held over four days and featured the presence of the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, and Lady Cosgrove; His Excellency Dr Christoph Muller, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany; and Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Chief of Navy. I want to thank him and all of those involved from the Navy for their engagement with this celebration and commemoration. I particularly thank Lieutenant Commander Desmond Woods from the Royal Australian Navy for his organisational work.
I will not have time to describe all of the events that happened, but I do want to thank a number of people for their engagement. As the federal member representing the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I would like to acknowledge the many Cocos Islanders and those from other places, past and present, who contributed to making the event such a success.
I would like to acknowledge Lionel Allen, an historian who started planning for the event on the 90th anniversary; Brian Lacy, a former administrator and chair of the reference group; Jon Stanhope, a former administrator; Shire President Aindil Minkom; Peter Clarke, a former shire CEO; Aaron Bowman, the current shire CEO; Nek Neng, a reference group member; Shane Charleston, from CKI Ports; Trish Flores, from the national parks; Ron Grant, from the Cocos Co Op; Lisa Smith; Peter Griggs; Jules Bush; the Cocos Keeling Islands Tourism Association; the Cocos Islands Community Resource Centre; the Cocos Island District High School and, particularly, principal Ray Denholm; AFP's Ben Owens, Zac, Lakina and Kenneth Zakaria; Sally Harrison, from the Cocos Historical Society; Toll Airport Management Cocos; the Cocos Club; Big Barge and Peter Wicks; Digger at Cocos Autos; Haji Adam Bin Anthony Rabuhu; Bin Haig Cree; Bin Pazan, Manija; and, most particularly, Amber Watters, who was the project coordinator. They did a wonderful amount of work.
The events that I was able to participate in were very memorable and are a tribute to their desire to make sure that this event is remembered, because it was the most important naval battle of the First World War for Australia. As our troops were embarking off to the Middle East, the Sydney went to intercept the Emden and a battle ensued and, ultimately, the Emden was beached off north Cocos Island. I commend all of those people and wish everyone in this place a happy, merry Christmas and a safe, pleasant and, depending on who you are, a prosperous New Year.
I rise today to congratulate Father Chris Riley's Youth Off The Streets on the relaunch of their outreach service in Macquarie Fields. Since 2012, Youth Off The Streets has offered a crucial lifeline for Macarthur youth who are facing challenges of homelessness, drug and alcohol dependency, exclusion from school, neglect and abuse. Youth Off The Streets works with these young people through a wide variety of services to turn their lives around and overcome immense personal traumas, such as neglect and physical, psychological and emotional abuse.
The service was founded by Father Chris Riley in 1991. It began with a single food van that delivered meals to young homeless people on the streets of Kings Cross. Now, 23 years later, it has developed an extensive and impressive range of programs that service not only the Macarthur region but also other areas in Western Sydney, south-western Sydney and the Hunter Valley. Some of the Youth Off The Streets services in Macquarie Fields include accredited schooling for years 7 to 10; service learning projects which involve young people assisting the community; support for transition to further education training and employment; programs focused on health and wellbeing; recreation facilities and programs; and a youth trainee worker program.
This stable community organisation is always looking for new ways to create a safe and engaging environment in the Macarthur region. It was with great pleasure that I attended the launch of a new outreach service recently at the Koch Centre in Macquarie Fields. The outreach service focuses on engaging disadvantaged youth aged between 12 and 21 years in their own environment through activities that allow young people to interact, socialise and meet youth workers. The purpose of the service is to help these young people reach their full potential by re-engaging them with the community, education and employment opportunities. Outreach starts with low-key activities such as free barbecues and recreational activities, before building up to more structured and specific activities as trust and acceptance in the community grows. The organisation has experienced great success in re-engaging disadvantaged youth since it first began the outreach service in 2005. I look forward to seeing it flourish into the future in the Macarthur region.
Seeing the wonderful turnout at the launch and meeting some of the inspiring young people working to implement the service reminded me, once again, what a wonderful and caring community that exists within Macarthur. I would like to take the opportunity to praise Teresa Tree for her role in organising the wonderful launch. The launch was a lively event that drew together a wide variety of community groups and leaders ranging from the arts to the NRL junior development team led by Drew Dalton. I would also like to congratulate all of the wonderful people at Macquarie Fields Youth Off The Streets branch for their dedicated efforts in reinvigorating the outreach service in the local area. On behalf of the Macarthur community, thank you for contributing your time and experience to Macarthur's youth. Your work in directing young people who have lost their way towards a bright and better future is an invaluable contribution to our community.
I would like to wish all members of the House a happy, safe and enjoyable Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
Today I wish to honour someone that did not necessarily make headlines in the newspaper or stories on the nightly news, but someone who worked diligently and persistently to assist those in need in his local community. Someone who would always lend a hand to those in need and roll-up his sleeves to improve his community and indeed contribute to humanity. That person is Alan Dutton. A loved husband, father and grandfather who sadly passed away suddenly a month and a half ago. I wish to pay tribute to the work that Alan has done in his community—and it is an immense contribution.
While his children attended Black Forrest Primary School, he was the president of the governing council and was on the Parents and Friends Association. He worked for Baptist Care, Mission South Australia and Uniting Church of Australia, lending his hand to those most vulnerable. He was a cricket coach for many years at the Adelaide Cricket Club, giving back to the sport that he loved. His passion for refugees was immense, and he was part of the SIEVX group that worked hard to achieve a memorial, to be erected on the grounds of Parliament House, to honour the men, women and children who drowned on their way to Australia. He also volunteered as a mentor, teaching English to a refugee family. He was on the board of the Schools Ministry Group and was instrumental in the early days of school chaplaincy in South Australia and Tasmania.
He not only worked hard in his local community, but he contributed to the global effort to end suffering around the world. He was on the board of TEAR Australia and a member of the Mitcham Rotary Club. He also had an immense passion for young people, which was part of the chaplaincy work that he did. He also volunteered later as a volunteer mentor at a local primary school.
His daughter Bek said the following about him:
The quote that comes to mind when I think of the way dad lived his life was summed up by Ghandi "Be the change you want to see in the world." He was someone who walked the talk and made a positive difference wherever he went.
Having known Alan and his family for many years I can certainly concur with this comment.
Alan's passing is a deeply sad occasion and I offer my condolences to his wife Bula, his children Rebeka, Andrew and Peter; also to his grandchildren Annabelle, Matilda, Noah and Agonda; and indeed to his family and friends. While Alan is no longer with us, his memory should be an inspiration to us all. That is to do whatever we can wherever we are to help those around us.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognise the wonderful sporting talent that we have in the electorate of Forde. I have previously recognised some of those in this parliament, and today I would like to mention a few more. As the 2014 sporting season draws to a close there are a number of wonderful success stories coming out of our local sporting clubs. Logan Cobras have spent the season consolidating their junior teams from the under 6s through to the under 10s. They were successful with the assistance of the 2014 president, Greg Ryan, who said, 'The teams have improved significantly and shown a bright future in AFL for the area.' There have been significant club milestones which include Sammy Dagan and Matt Hartz both achieving 150 games for the club. Jack Honey and Ryan Wichmann have both played 100 games. Jeremy Griffin, Ethan Madden and Jordan Savage all achieved the 50-game milestone. Well done to all of those players for their significant service to the club.
I would also like to recognise the coaches for the wonderful work that they do. These include the under 6s coach Michael Young; under 8s, Jay Keegan and Wade Thomas; under 9s, Trevor Bryant; and for the under 10s, Aaron Muncey and Clint Hargraves. I would also like to thank the managers: Renee French, Carol Young, Christine Woolley, Meagan Parsons, Chris Castle, and Mark and Kristy Williams. All of these people are what make our sporting clubs so successful. Without them the clubs and the players could not go out onto the park every week. I look forward to catching up with them all in the 2015 season.
I would also like to congratulate Waterford Demons for the work that they have done this year when they became the toast of this year's Gordon Tallis Cup, in recognition for their response to a cry for help from Townsville's Tully Tigers back in 2011. The Demons' now under-10 side answered the Tigers' call for cyclone assistance by donating $700 and shirts and water bottles to the Cyclone Yasi affected club, which at the time lost almost everything. The Demons and Tigers recently reunited at the cup, and under-10s manager Chris Lafferty said the teams meeting again was a moment to cherish.
I would like to recognise some local sporting champions in the time I have remaining to speak, because we have had the privilege of announcing the latest round: Ivan Karaman, Brittany Zendler, Kieran Smith, Joel Anich, Natasha Jelacic, Hannah Le Sage, Jake Duffy, Shari Uwins, Wade Graham, Tyler Hurst, Niwareka Matangi and Keegan Jelacic. Congratulations to all of those local sporting champions.
On Saturday, Victorians made history by electing Daniel Andrews and Victorian Labor to form state government, consigning the Ted Baillieu-Denis Napthine Liberal government to being the first one-term government in Victoria since John Cain senior lost power at the height of the split in the Labor Party in 1955.
What a turnaround in four short years. The headline in The Agewhen there was last a change of government, in the aftermath of Baillieu's triumph over John Brumby, was 'Victorian Labor will not win government for years'—well, four years! There are a number of reasons why the Labor Party rebounded so quickly, including our pledges to prioritise transport plans that matter to the Victorian people: the Melbourne metro rail link to address public transport woes and the removal of 50 of the worst level-crossings in Victoria, which are a problem not evident to people in other states and in other cities who do not understand the problem of level-crossing hold-ups in Victoria. This stood out against the coalition's prized toll road, much praised in this House but not of as great relevance to Victorians as the hold-ups to their trams and trains.
The fact that the LNP waited a few weeks, just prior to caretaker mode, to sign these expensive contracts in an election they were favoured to lose cannot have helped their credibility. The fact is they had very little to boast about in the election campaign, which was almost entirely focused on negatives about the previous Bracks-Brumby government. It is almost as if no-one told them they had been in power for years.
Some of the most powerful messages I saw in the divisions of Albert Park, Prahran, Caulfield and Brighton, which make up my wonderful electorates of Melbourne Ports, were swings to Labor due to simple and powerful policies. Labor's promise to animal welfare advocates to ban inhumane puppy farms is one campaign which received overwhelmingly positive feedback but that will slip under the radar of many of the cynical journalists who report on state politics. Another policy which won widespread support, particularly for my friend Martin Foley, the member for Albert Park, was to keep the iconic Palais Theatre in St Kilda open, with a much-needed restoration pledged by Daniel Andrews. The election also marked a stark view of the federal government, which was undoubtedly part of the campaign, and the Prime Minister is certainly more unpopular in Victoria than in the rest of the nation. His education deregulation agenda and his petrol tax are very unpopular in Victoria. His awkward hug of Premier Napthine must have made the Victorian Liberal Party cringe, and it seemed to have a very bad effect on the Australian public.
I congratulate Daniel Andrews and Martin Foley on their victories, and I hope Neil Pharaoh is elected in Prahran—he is just 70 votes behind, with absentee votes still to go.
This year, 2014, was a good year for Gilmore. In fact, if you were to include our Defence announcements, Gilmore has delivered $3.74 billion of coalition government support in the 15 months since the election. While there has been the usual media short-term memory loss, wiping clean the fiscal blackboard of the previous, Labor government, we know that before the election the debt was supposed to be just over $18 billion—which was bad enough—but that in fact it had blown out by an additional $30 billion. We on the government benches are told that is our problem. The opposition wipe their hands of responsibility. That is a bit like a ditch digger using a shovel in the wrong place and then saying to the next team, 'That's not my problem; you're holding the shovel.' Thank goodness most Australians are not that gullible. They know that their electricity accounts are lower because we got rid of the carbon tax. They know it was the action of this government that stopped the business of people smuggling and the deaths at sea. Australians know that this meant we could hold our hands out in welcome to more than 2,000 refugees from the Iraqi-Syrian conflict.
We as a nation still have a lot to do, but my goodness there are great foundations already in place. As a candidate I was often told, 'We need a Snowy Mountains scheme.' Our program of $50 billion of infrastructure rollout is equal to eight Snowy Mountains schemes. We have not one but three free trade agreements, with Japan, Korea and China. Our agriculture, dairy, seafood, beef, wine, specialist manufacturing and service industries can prosper, grow and make money for Australians. This means more jobs and more opportunities. It will not happen overnight. Good outcomes depend on good planning and steady application. But it will happen, because the coalition is good with managing money—your money. We know that Mr and Mrs Taxpayer expect that.
Residents of Gilmore expect advocacy and delivery for local projects. In the last 12 months we have delivered significant funding: $2 million for the Dunn Lewis memorial centre and for youth development, training and community engagement; almost $20 million for further roads funding including Roads to Recovery and Black Spot funding; and $10 million for the next design phase of the Shoalhaven bridge crossing. Gilmore was nominated as a trial site for the new Work for the Dole program. We have four Green Army projects in place. We have confirmed funding for CCTV cameras for community security. We held community forums on NBN rollouts, advocated for additional mixed technology supply, and coordinated community meetings and surveys for extra mobile phone towers. I will continue to remind, negotiate, bargain and advocate for residents of Gilmore.
Let me finish on the note of wishing everyone health and happiness and also the ability to look at the world and share a different view. We are lucky to live in Australia, but we are not all lucky. We live in Australia, but we do not all live well. If there is a chance to make someone feel lucky over Christmas, then do so. Make a difference for them and see the world from a different view. All the very best to everyone in Parliament House.
The second President of the United States, John Adams, once remarked that 'facts are stubborn things'. 'Whatever our wishes, inclinations or passions,' Adams said, 'we cannot alter facts. We cannot change evidence.' That is a good rule for people who are involved in infrastructure. That is the rule that we established through the creation of Infrastructure Australia: to get proper advice from experts based on cost-benefit analysis—based on the benefit to productivity guiding where infrastructure investment went.
The Abbott government has ignored that. The experts at Infrastructure Australia urged the government to invest in the Melbourne Metro. We had already spent $40 million on getting the planning right. We urged it to invest in the M80 program. One billion dollars had already been spent on improvements to the ring-road around Melbourne—much needed and of much benefit—but it was cut in the budget this year. And then we have the Managed Motorways Program, benefiting the Monash Freeway to the east of Melbourne, where there was a $68 million cut in the budget even though it had a cost-benefit analysis of 5.2, or a $5.20 benefit for every dollar invested. The government backed the East West Link project in spite of the fact that the cost-benefit analysis was 0.5—or, if you add things in, 0.8. Last Saturday, the voters of Victoria rendered a judgement about those actions by electing my friend Dan Andrews as Premier of Victoria.
Today I also want to talk about the WestConnex road project in Sydney. The WestConnex project, as I said on 12 March last year as the Minister for Infrastructure, needed to achieve three objectives. I told the House about three commitments that we made: one, the M4 has to take people into the city; two, the M5 has to take freight to the port; and, three, you cannot have new tolls on old roads. That position was right then and it is right today. At the moment, the proposition that the WestConnex project will channel traffic to St Peters, to the west of the airport, to the most heavily congested areas of Sydney, and then traffic will have to funnel its way through Gardeners Road or King Street, Newtown, will ensure that this is a road to a traffic jam. This is contrary to the advice of Infrastructure Australia and the advice from Infrastructure New South Wales that, in its 2012 report, said first things first and that better port access was the top priority for New South Wales. I urge the government to ensure that they get this right.
I rise to wish everybody in this place, all members and senators, including the member for Grayndler, a very happy Christmas. I hope 2015 is a wonderful year for you as well, sir. On behalf myself and my team, I wish a happy Christmas to the hundred thousand people who live within the beautifully diverse electorate of Lyons in my home state of Tasmania. I have had the privilege of being the member now for almost 15 months. Indeed, I have enjoyed every minute of it. I know it is a privilege. I know it is an honour that is bestowed on very few people. Even this morning as I walked into work—I still pinch myself when I see the flag flying above this amazing building. It is, indeed, a privilege.
I have travelled extensively throughout my electorate. It is a large electorate of 33,000 square kilometres. I have held 29 listening posts from Dodges Ferry and Taranna in the south-east, from Bicheno and Swansea on the east coast, from Wilmot and the little town of Lorinna in the north-west and from Magra and Westerway in the south-west. It has been a privilege. One of the highlights I have had is the schools that I have visited, be they the Tasman District School, the Port Sorell Primary School, our Lady of Mercy School from Deloraine, Bothwell District High school or the Meander Primary School.
I am delighted to have hosted many visits to my electorate from senior members of the government. They have included the Prime Minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott; the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson; the Minister for Human Services, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne; the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt; the Assistant Minister for Education, the Hon. Sussan Ley; the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Jamie Briggs; and the Assistant Minister for employment, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker. These visits highlight that the coalition is serious about the importance of the Lyons electorate. I thank each and every minister for their time. It is truly appreciated. I have made countless representations to ministers on behalf of constituents—some with success, some with less so.
Further, I am delighted to have delivered on key coalition election commitments and a number of funding commitments I worked hard on to secure for the electorate of Lyons. These include $60,000 of the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program that has been delivered and $750,000 to Community Transport Services Tasmania. Recently in aged care, Corumbene in New Norfolk received 11 residential care packages and $1.1 million worth of capital; Tandara Lodge at Sheffield received four residential packages and nearly $1 million of capital; and Toosey at Longford received eight home care packages valued at $130,000. It has been a privilege.
I would like to thank my staff, including Caroline, Alison, Sharna, Bonnie, Lorraine, Monique and Kirsty for all the wonderful work they do. In particular, I thank my family, my beautiful wife Amanda and my two fantastic boys David and John. They will be fine young men when they grow up. Without them, I could not be here and I could not be doing the job I am doing. It is a privilege.
The Prime Minister's claim to be the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs has been exposed as a hollow platitude. The Indigenous affairs portfolio is in an utter shambles at the moment. The situation is that the government cut $534.4 million in the budget directly from PM&C and claimed that it would be only an efficiency dividend. But in fact, in Senate estimates officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have confirmed these are front-line programs which are being cut.
In addition to this $534.4 million, the Abbott government cut $15 million from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, $9.6 million from Indigenous Languages Support programs, $13.4 million from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service and axed the COAG Reform Council, which measures how we are going in terms of Closing the Gap. It has not renewed its National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development, leaving 38 children and family centres facing closure without Commonwealth funding, including the Ipswich children and family centre in my electorate. In addition to that, in my electorate we have seen the impacts on organisations such as Five Bridges and the Ipswich Community Justice Group, along with Kambu Medical Centre.
I have written to the minister on their behalf in relation to the funding and lobbying that is necessary, but the minister has not had the grace and humility to respond to my letter, which was dated in February 2014. He has ignored it—refusing to respond—but that is the modus operandi for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The Queensland Attorney-General—no friend of mine—recently identified these organisations in my electorate as being standout community justice groups. They enjoy LNP state government support in Queensland, but this government here in Canberra continues to ignore their pleas for funding or even my correspondence on their behalf.
They, along with about 5,000 organisations, have applied for the $2.3 billion allegedly provided in the budget for the Indigenous Advancement Strategy of the coalition government here in Canberra. In fact, the minister said it was $4.8 billion, but we know by the applications that it is only $2.3 billion. So, come February-March next year, many organisations—including the ones I have listed in my electorate—are at risk of losing the funding. Indeed, the portfolio is such a shemozzle that they have had to continue the transitional funding until the middle of next year, because they were not in a position to let those organisations know whether their funding would continue. In other words, staff, services, funding and assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around the country have been at put at risk by this government's shambolic management of this portfolio and the cuts they have perpetrated and continue to perpetuate in this area.
I would like to express my condolences at the recent death of Mrs Heather Southcott AM, who was a former member of the South Australian House of Assembly in the seat of Mitcham. Heather was my great aunt. I thank the South Australian members of parliament who have spoken on the condolence motion in the Legislative Council and those who will speak on the condolence motion in the House of Assembly today.
Heather was born in 1928 and was the daughter of a bank manager and a community-minded homemaker and was raised in the tradition of the Scots Free Church. Her father encouraged her to believe that she could do anything. She studied pharmacy at the University of Adelaide and was one of only four women in her year. She met her husband Ron Southcott, my great uncle, when they both worked at the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital and married in 1952. At that time, the marriage bar required Heather to leave her job as a Commonwealth public servant. She returned to private work in pharmacy while raising two daughters, Jane and Anne Marie.
I want to speak a little about Heather's family. They were and are a high-achieving family with an enormous range of interests and a strong ethos of service. I often met people who had worked with one of them and was always happy to reflect on what they had done. Being a relative, it was an association which I have always been proud of and I had a high regard for the work that Heather and the rest of her family had done. Ron was described by paediatrician and toxicologist, Dr John Pearn, as among the greatest of the Australian doctor-naturalists who worked as an administrator with the Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs but who with his self-funded home laboratory and in his spare time was a zoologist and botanist of outstanding breadth. Jane is an Associate Professor in Education at Monash University with a focus on the teaching of music and Anne Marie is a respiratory physician.
Heather described herself as a joiner and was involved in numerous groups: the National Council of Women, the Women's Pharmacist Group, the group which established the Adelaide Women's Memorial Playing Fields and the United Nations Association of Australia. She joined the Women's Electoral Lobby and became interested in Indigenous issues through her association with the Scots Free Church. She joined the Liberal and Country League and made a similar journey to Robin Millhouse, moving to the Liberal Movement, the new Liberal Movement and finally the Australian Democrats. She won the Mitcham by-election in 1982, where she beat the Liberal candidate Robert Worth, the husband of Trish Worth.
Heather was the first woman to lead a political party in Australia being the state leader and later the national leader of the Australian Democrats. She only spent six months in the South Australian parliament. She enjoyed the electorate work but she did not enjoy being a sole Democrat in the parliament, but she was able later to use the work and the experience for a variety of community organisations. She was very active in the community. My condolences to her family.
I want to congratulate businesses in my electorate who have received funding from the Melbourne's North Innovation and Investment Fund. This was a fund set up by the former federal Labor government in order to assist local business in the northern suburbs of Melbourne to diversify and create jobs following the announced closure of the Ford car factory. The first offers were announced in October and I want to congratulate the following businesses. The Cottage Cheese Farm, in Broadmeadows, received $765,000 to construct a purpose built cheese and yoghurt manufacturing facility intended to create 17 jobs. Lakeside Packaging Management, in Campbellfield, received $1.19 million to upgrade its cardboard packaging manufacturing facility, creating 26 jobs. Machinery Automation and Robotics, Tullamarine, received $400,000 to expand its innovative automation systems and create 10 jobs. Baxters Foods, in Campbellfield, received $1.3 million to establish an Asia-Pacific headquarters at its Campbellfield gourmet foods facility, and it intends to create 39 jobs. I want to commend these local businesses and look forward to their continued growth and success.
It has been a busy time in my electorate, with many community events taking place in the lead-up to Christmas, and I would like to make special mention of the Brite Services annual open day. Brite is the only provider in Melbourne's north-west that trains people with a disability and provides employment for them. It is a wonderful organisation that I am very proud to have working in my electorate of Calwell. Brite is made up of a wholesale nursery and a packaging plant, and offers training courses that are all geared towards getting its students employment-ready. Brite Nursery was also partially funded under the federal Labor government's Local Solutions Fund. It is now reaping the rewards of that investment we made into our people and it has been selected as a finalist for the 2014 Australian Training Awards .
Each year Brite holds an open day where the community gets the opportunity to visit to see what is going on and what Brite is doing largely for people with disabilities. Above all, it is that time of the year where we can buy from a huge selection of plants and herbs grown in Brite's sprawling nursery. We get to choose from lots of Christmas hampers for sale, enjoy the sausage sizzle and enjoy lots of cups of tea and great delicious scones.
Of course there is a long list of fantastic people who work hard to ensure that Brite Services remains strong and viable. I want to thank the chair, Helena Gillies, for her unwavering and tireless commitment to this organisation; deputy chair Beverly Lee, a parent of one of the Brite Services employees; Ben Kelly, the executive officer; and Paras Christou, the community development officer. I thank the many wonderful volunteers who work to ensure the viability of the organisation, in particular Ray Gorman and local councillors Victor Dougall, Helen Papstikatheodorou and John Gillies,
As we head towards Christmas it is timely to think about those for whom Christmas Day will be just another day—nothing special, just a struggle to keep a roof over your children's head, keep them safe and put a meal on the table. This is a good reminder for us all. Today I am presenting a petition regarding the activities of a charity called Feed the Little Children, in Broome, in the electorate of Durack. It has been approved by the Petitions Committee.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of residents of Broome, Western Australia being Aboriginal women draws to the attention of the House that we the undersigned, respectfully say that we are struggling to maintain household food security for our children for a range of complex historical, social, cultural and economic reasons. Our children face higher risks from health, mental health issues, and imprisonment, all of which are linked by empirical evidence to household food insecurity; and are 13.4 times more likely to be recorded in child protection statistics than non ATSI children. We strongly support the activity being carried out by Feed The Little Inc. (FTLC Inc.) charity that helps us maintain household food security for our children and develop culturally sensitive food security specific capacity building/training for our children.
We therefore ask the House to please help us Aboriginal women and our children in our struggles by:
a. Providing urgent funding, resources and data to the unique FTLC Inc. Charity to continue to help us and stop it from closing.
b. Conducting a Parliamentary investigation to confirm or deny FTLC Inc. impacts on juvenile crime reduction, increased juvenile health and wellbeing, increased school attendance and breaking poverty cycles for our children.
c. Provide an MOU between relevant government agencies and FTLC Inc. for immediate access, in accordance with legislation, to all necessary sanitised aggregated child data relating to health, mental health, education, crime and child protection to help collect quantitative evidence.
from 75 citizens
Petition received.
I am pleased to present this petition to the House and commend the work of the principal petitioner, Clinton Durham. This petition in support of the Feed the Little Children charity has been signed by residents, primarily Aboriginal women, from the beautiful coastal town of Broome on the Kimberley coast of Western Australia. The petition draws attention to the House that many Aboriginal women are struggling to maintain household food security for their children and families, for a range of complex historical, social, cultural and economic reasons—and often their children go hungry. These Aboriginal children face higher risks from general and mental health issues and imprisonment than other children. We have heard that a lot in this House in the last 12 months. Children who are always hungry cannot function properly, and this is why there are so many school breakfast programs—food and shelter must come first; they are basic needs. This petition from Aboriginal women says:
… our children … are 13.4 times more likely to be recorded in child protection statistics than non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
We strongly support the activity being carried out by the Feed the Little Children Incorporated charity that helps us maintain household food security for our children.
The signatories to the petition 'ask the House to please help us Aboriginal women and our children in our struggles by (a) providing urgent funding, resources and data' to the Feed the Little Children charity so that they can continue to keep their doors open assist mothers and children. They ask the House, secondly, to conduct an investigation to confirm or deny that the charity does in fact positively impact juvenile crime, health and wellbeing, school attendance and the poverty cycle; and, thirdly, to provide a memorandum of understanding between relevant government agencies and the Feed the Little Children charity, primarily for access, in accordance with legislation, to sanitised aggregated data relating to health, mental health, crime, child protection and so on, in order to help quantitative evidence of the positive impacts of the charity.
I commend the work of the Feed the Little Children charity and the petition to the House.
I want to take the opportunity to put on the record today the great distress and disappointment of tens of thousands of people across my electorate—from the young to the very old—who have heard this week that it will be at least 2016 before they even find out what form of technology this government will be rolling out under the National Broadband Network across our region or when, indeed, it will even start in their area. This is particularly disappointing and frustrating for them because many of these suburbs have very poor broadband access now. When the current minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said just over a year ago that addressing underserviced areas would be a priority for the new government's rollout, they had anticipated that that might be the case for them, and it has not been.
So I would indicate that suburbs across my region have been contacting me for quite a while now, in particular the area of Bundeena, which is at the very northern end, and many of the suburbs along the escarpment at the north of my electorate, because the topography is quite challenging anyway, and parts of areas like Figtree which currently have to rely on very, very poor broadband, if any. They are not even on the current rollout that was announced this week. They have poor broadband now. They were anticipating they would be prioritised. Now they have found out that they will not be. They are pretty cranky about it, and I understand why.
For many of us, as we would know—and I know my colleague the member for Ryan and I went around the country with the standing committee, hearing about the important role that broadband plays for households, small businesses, home-based businesses and students studying—it is not just about the speed of the download, which is also a disappointment given that the government made commitments that there would be a minimum download speed of 25 megabits, and that is not going to be achieved. It is also about the upload capacity. If you are running a small business from home and you need to be sending files, you need not only speed but reliability in order to achieve that. It is also about the fact that if they are ending up with this new technology, which will be fibre to the node, they are going to face the real problem we face every time it rains in our region. You are relying on the copper for the last section still. It drops out. It is unreliable. The frustrations will not be improved by running fibre to the corner of the street. So I would implore the minister to have another look at the suburbs across the Illawarra which have very poor quality broadband now. They wanted Labor's broadband, but at least, if they are going to get the second-rate one, it should be prioritised for those areas that have underservicing already.
One of the special things about the people in my electorate of Ryan is their genuine interest in the local environment. There are always plenty of green projects on the go, and residents take pride in our local parks and waterways. Just recently the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network hosted their Family Fun Day and Community Planting. It was a wonderful day and it was great to see the community so active and involved.
The federal coalition government has funded a $2.1 million initiative to see South-East Queensland work with a range of partners to improve Brisbane's green spaces and waterways. The Cubberla-Witton Catchment is one of more than 35 catchments in the lower Brisbane region which received a share of this funding as part of the 'What's your nature?' initiative. It includes various community events that involve planting and weeding around creek and river beds as a way to increase awareness of our natural environment. As a result of their initiative, the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network have now removed the weed infestations from Cubberla Creek, achieved erosion control and planted more trees. The award-winning Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network are to be applauded for their dedication to improving our natural environment. They also coordinate volunteer projects that involve rehabilitation and habitat repair as well as weed control and planting of native vegetation in the local area.
Another project in which Ryan locals have been involved is the preservation of Thomas Park and its bougainvillea gardens at Indooroopilly. My office, along with Councillor Julian Simmonds, has helped Ryan local Arch Caithness in his determination to get the park listed on the Queensland Heritage Register. Thomas Park is named after Henry Thomas, who owned the park and garden until he sold the land to the Brisbane City Council in 1947 on the condition it was kept for public use. Mr Thomas planted the first bougainvillea seedling in the garden in 1898. The garden thrived, and it became internationally recognised and a popular tourist attraction for people visiting Queensland, to say nothing of the many bridal parties who use it for their special day's photographs. It is amazing to think it has flourished for over 100 years. The preservation of this park is important to the history of the area, and I am very pleased to say the gardens are now listed on the Queensland Heritage Register.
Councillor Simmonds has now put together an advisory group to work with Arch and the community, which will look at ways to maintain the park. I wish the group all the best as they care for and protect such a special part of our local history. As usual, it is volunteers who dedicate their time to these causes. It is hard to imagine how these community groups would function without the hundreds of hours contributed by these devoted volunteers, and we need to acknowledge them as much and often as possible.
These are just a couple of groups in Ryan which work tirelessly to preserve our natural environment and maintain our parks and wildlife, but there are many more. All of these community groups in Ryan and throughout Australia are to be commended for their dedication to our environment and their commitment to maintain it for future generations. (Time expired)
I rise to pass on a message to the Treasurer on behalf of Janet from Runcorn, in my electorate, who sent me an email after I invited her to the Lions Senior Health Awareness Expo, which she could not attend. I quote:
The statement Mr. Hockey has made about Pensioners becoming a burden on society has really upset me and I strongly object to be referred to as such. I worked up until I had our children so paid taxes then stayed at home too bring up our two children. I helped in their various schools, reading, tuck shop, fetes etc. In those days Child Benefit was very meagre but I was grateful for it … On my children leaving school I volunteered, meals on Wheels then delivering library books for … libraries, heard children read after school also at the libraries … I transport older people who no longer drive to various Church activities etc. All this I have done gladly saving the various governments hundreds. Like many "older'' people do.
We were bought up to work for what we have …
… … …
What I would like to know—
is—
why we are targeted …
… … …
I would appreciate that statements ought to be thought through before making sweeping statements and changes.
This is typical of the comments that came my way after various attacks on the seniors in Moreton and across Australia from this government.
We note that the Deputy Prime Minister said that pensioners were wasting their money on cruises and holidays. The seniors I talk to are barely able to get through their year and meet all their bills, keep the electricity on and keep enough food in the house. This attack on seniors is typical of an LNP government that have lost touch with the ordinary, everyday Australian. To have seniors in the Hockey crosshairs is indicative of a government that really need to spend the holidays thinking about finding a new direction. They need to either reboot or get booted out because they have lost the plot.
The other thing that seniors are particularly concerned about is the GP tax, the doctor tax, $7 that is going to target the sick and the vulnerable. Obviously, the elderly often meet both of these criteria. No-one ever mentioned a GP tax. It was raised by the Labor Party in the Griffith by-election, and the foreign minister said there was no way that the Liberal and National parties would be introducing a tax on the sick and the vulnerable. Now we have seen it rejected, but it will come back by stealth. This will hurt seniors particularly. The other hit to seniors that is in the pipeline is the commitment to decrease the rate of increase to the pension. That is waiting in the wings as well, and the years are ticking by and seniors are particularly scared that this will come through. I ask this Grinch of a government to have a think over Christmas and do not target seniors, the vulnerable or the sick.
I rise today to speak on a matter of critical importance to my electorate and, indeed, to the future economic prosperity of the Murray-Darling Basin communities within it. The Australian government, through the process of negotiating the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, committed $25 million for an economic diversification program in order to assist South Australian regional communities to adjust to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Funding could only be delivered once each relevant state government had signed a project agreement confirming their commitment to the program. Disappointingly, the South Australian state government is the only jurisdiction which has failed to constructively negotiate a project agreement accepting its share of federal funding. In fact, other states have already delivered their allocation on projects on the ground. The Australian government have now written to Minister Brock on three separate occasions seeking the South Australian government's commitment to this important program; but we are yet to receive a response despite it being nine months from the date of the first letter.
What makes this even more remarkable is there is no requirement for any matching funding from the state government; this is completely Australian federal government money. Regional communities are missing out because of Mr Brock and state Labor. Minister Brock has sold out regional communities in order to remain in lockstep with his Labor cabinet colleagues. This is just one example of his failure on the integrity front. South Australia is missing out on vital funds—$25 million, no less. The supposedly independent Minister Brock has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the South Australian state Labor Party. He is effectively the marionette to puppet-master Weatherill.
I know from my conversations with the local government, regional development associations and local communities in my electorate that the level of frustration in the community is clearly palpable. This comes, of course, on top of explosive revelations in today's Advertiser that the anti-federal government campaign being waged by Weatherill's government—aided and abetted, of course, by Liberal traitor Martin Hamilton-Smith and Geoff Brock, 'minister for regional photo opportunities'; and funded by the South Australian taxpayer—is a complete sham.
These revelations prove that, just like the Murray-Darling diversification fund, the South Australian government are more interested in playing politics and distracting the South Australian community from their own failures, for they are clearly evident.
The Australian government remain committed to this vital program to ensure that we create new local jobs and grow South Australia's regional economy. I call on state Labor, through Premier Weatherill and the 'minister for regional photo opportunities', Geoff Brock, to submit their list of projects immediately so we can get on with the job of sustaining South Australian economic development. Effectively, Minister Brock needs to decide whether he is a minister for regional development for all South Australians or simply Weatherill's 'tourist-in-chief'. (Time expired)
Community television is an integral part of Geelong's local news and media services. It has a unique place in our region and is an irreplaceable part of a strong television industry that values diversity; but this is something that the Abbott government has clearly failed to understand. Minister Turnbull has moved to force Victoria's Channel 31 off the air, declaring that they will not have their apparatus licences renewed beyond next year.
Since this announcement, the minister has continually defended his decision by citing weak ratings. While ratings may be an important consideration, community television is about so much more than what can be measured with statistics; it is about delivering high-quality local content that supports participation and media diversity and provides invaluable opportunities for students and volunteers aspiring to a future in the industry.
The work of Channel 31within the Geelong community demonstrates precisely this. Within any given week, the station delivers two news reports through the News Geelong program, solely dedicated to local news, and produces Pulse TV in collaboration with Pulse radio, which is devoted to local issues and events, and two sports reports that focus specifically on our local football and netball. Additionally, the channel provides an important avenue for the promotion of local events and festivals. These are the only Geelong dedicated TV news services. The decision of Minister Turnbull to move community television off free-to-air services threatens the future of these invaluable programs.
The importance of community broadcasters has never been determined purely on the basis of raw figures. In fact, the legislated purpose of community television, established under the Broadcasting Services Act, requires community stations to demonstrate strong community engagement, open access and viable financial records. Channel 31 clearly fulfils its responsibilities to maintain strong community engagement; being a free to air TV station is integral to its open access; and it has an annual turnover of around $2.5 million, generated predominantly from the sale of sponsorship announcements. Despite this the minister is still intent on destroying our Channel 31. The operations manager of Channel 31, Mathew Field, is disappointed that:
… at a time when there are six shopping channels broadcasting on free to air TV, the people of Geelong are about to lose their community television station as a result of this decision.
I sincerely urge Minister Turnbull to acknowledge the true ramifications of turning his back on community television and reconsider this unfair and misinformed decision.
In the time I have left, on another matter I would just like to commend St Thomas Aquinas Primary School in Norlane, which services one of the lowest SES communities in the state of Victoria. I would like to acknowledge Principal Michael Manganelli and Father Ray Zammit, the parish priest, and particularly the fete they held on 14 November, which was an unmitigated success. They do our community an enormous service.
CQUniversity is the prominent university in my electorate of Capricornia. I am pleased to announce that 20 nursing students from CQUniversity will head to Nepal to increase their knowledge and skills thanks to a new mobile study grant provided by the Australian government. The students will undertake a nursing study tour in 2015 under the government's New Colombo Plan. As part of the tour, students will take part in a full-time three-week placement at two Nepalese hospitals. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to broaden their medical knowledge and live, study and work overseas.
Clinical supervision and academic support will be provided by CQUniversity and Nepal's Pokhara University. The 20 undergraduate students are among 3,000 young Australians to receive mobility grants to live, study and work in the Indo-Pacific region in 2015. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Education Minister Christopher Pyne indicate the grants are part of the Australian government's flagship New Colombo Plan in which Australian students spend time learning overseas. New Colombo Plan mobility grants support undergraduate students to undertake study, clinical placements, internships and mentorships, as well as short-term research in 32 destinations such as Pakistan, Mongolia, Nepal and the Cook Islands.
While on the subject of learning from overseas, I am pleased to announce that a Rockhampton kindergarten will trial a new government Asian language program. The South Rockhampton Kindergarten has been selected as one of only 40 sites across Australia to participate in our federal government trial called the Early Learning Languages Australia, or ELLA, program. The program uses digital apps to provide the opportunity for students to learn the basics of a second language in the year before they start school. Children at a very young age have the ability to learn new things quite quickly. The ability to learn about a second language broadens their skills later in life, particularly as Australia reaches out to places like China and Japan for future trade agreements. South Rockhampton Kindergarten is located near the city's Japanese Gardens at the Rockhampton Botanic Gardens and it is likely the students could learn the basic elements of Japanese. They may also touch on Mandarin, Indonesian, Arabic or French.
I would also like to wish all the Merry Christmas and thank my supporters and wonderful staff for all the hard work this year. Chris, Kylie, Janine, Mark, Karla and Thomas: I could not do it without you. To my wonderful family: thank you for keeping things running while I am away. My electorate of Capricornia is the powerhouse of the nation and I will continue to work hard to get the recognition we deserve after years of neglect by Labor.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
The tragic loss of Phillip Hughes, the batsman from the bush, has reverberated around the cricket world, shocked a nation and devastated the picturesque North Coast town of Macksville. In Macksville flags flew at half-mast, people shook their heads in disbelief, shops and offices went quiet, and the few people on the streets carried on their business with eyes downcast. The local paper, the Nambucca Guardian News, reported on the day of his passing small groups of old men chatting solemnly on street corners and a line of cricket bats and caps standing outside the Macksville Public School—a tribute which has been copied around the globe. The message board at St Patrick's school paid tribute to Phillip, a former student.
In recent days I have spoken to people in Macksville. They were keen to share their memories of Phillip and their admiration for his achievements. Phillip Hughes was born there 26 years ago last Sunday to Greg and Virginia, hard-working banana farmers. Phillip was raised in a rural community with a strong agricultural heritage. He loved the land and he loved his sport. He was a country boy to a tee and was also a talented rugby league player, having played in the junior league with the famous rugby league international, Greg Inglis.
However, it was cricket that was his passion. He played for the Macksville Ex-Services Cricket Club Juniors. His talents were recognised early in his career, being selected for A Grade at the age of only 12—an amazing achievement in itself. Phillip instituted night cricket in the backyard of the Macksville family home with his brother Jason. They played for hours under a spotlight until called into the house each evening. Young men from country areas have been a source of great talent over the years for Australian cricket. Phillip took the big step of moving to Sydney when he was 17 to pursue his dream. He worked hard, tirelessly, to wear baggy green cap No. 408, to be a test player for Australia. It was not easy but he achieved his goal—the childhood dream of so many Australians.
It is common to many successful young people from the Nambucca Valley that they retain a love for their home towns and return whenever possible. This was also true of Phillip. He always came home when his extensive commitments permitted. He would attend the presentation nights at the Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club whenever he could. Mayor Rhonda Hoban described to me how Phillip never tired of signing an endless stream of favourite bats and caps. She said he appeared to remember what it was like to dream of playing for Australia. As well as his passion for cricket, Phillip had a passion for the land and his Angus cattle. He was working on improving a property which he purchased for the development of an Angus stud. As with his commitment to junior cricket in the Nambucca, he also took pride in showing and leading his cattle in the local show.
Yesterday I attended the service in honour of the life of Phillip Hughes along with the Prime Minister, Premier, Mike Baird, the sports minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Phillip's death is an event that has certainly united us in this House as it has united the nation in grief. The spirit of community runs deep in Macksville and it seemed the entire town and surrounding district turned out to show their respect. The local shops closed their doors and townspeople lined the streets for the funeral procession. Such was the esteem in which this young man was held that the service I would suggest was probably the largest event ever to occur in Macksville.
We cannot walk in the shoes of parents Greg and Virginia and siblings Jason and Megan but we can as a nation show that we care. The Hughes family can be rightly proud of the contribution their son and brother has made to Australian sport and our nation, of the young cricketers he has inspired and of the respect with which he was held in his community. He will forever remain an inspiration to the people of the Nambucca Valley. Phillip Hughes we honour you—63 not out
I would like to share with the House an exciting and innovative approach adopted in Belmont to address the scourge of graffiti. We have called it 'Block by Block'. It is important to acknowledge that in every community in Australia there is a problem with graffiti—it is removed and then the next day it is back. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. It is a big effort, and the current approach is very unsuccessful.
In Belmont we decided to create an art gallery. There was one area that was particularly badly hit by graffiti—the shopping centre behind my office. The Reject Shop, the dental surgery and all the other businesses got together and agreed to transform this area into an art gallery—and it is phenomenal. People have been coming from all over to look at the work being produced there. Some of the best graffiti artists in the country—and even some from New Zealand—have come to show off their work in this block.
The project is called 'Block by Block' because we are hoping we can replicate the project, block by block, throughout the area. The new art gallery has been there for a couple of weeks now. This was an area where, if you cleaned off all the graffiti one day, the next it would be totally covered again. But now that is not happening. All the artwork is still there—the beautiful murals that have been produced are still on the walls. One of the most exciting ones, all along a very big wall of the Belmont Central Shopping Centre, is of a crocodile. People just come and stand and look at it and are mesmerised. Then we have an animal collage on the back of the Reject Shop. Next, moving over, there is an underwater scene across the back of Cafe Macquarie and the dental surgery. Frickers Shoes was one of the shops that had been constantly bombed by graffiti and they were one of the first shops to sign up to having this innovative approach to solving the graffiti problem tried out. On their roller door at the back they have a wonderful mural, and a beautiful bird has been produced down the side alley.
There will be a second round which will start at the end of January and the beginning of February. It will see the area further transformed. It is not uncommon to see young people standing there looking at it and families coming along to view the artwork. That is what it is; it is artwork. As opposed to the tagging that constantly takes place in lots of areas, this is something that enhances the visual environment.
I would like to give particular credit to Ana Benson. She is an event organiser as well as being one of the owners of Cafe Macquarie, which is next door to my office. I mentioned very flippantly to her one day that we should look at addressing graffiti in this way—and she took it up very seriously and was the catalyst behind this project. The chamber of commerce, particularly Sue, was very supportive. The artists involved have been BMD, Keo Match, Skubz, Mike Watt, Ape Seven, Oh Noes, Skulk and Che He He. They came from Melbourne, Sydney and New Zealand. They are phenomenal artists. There were also three young locals, Jordan, Daniel and Regan, who come from Belmont and Caves Beach. I encourage members to look at adopting such an innovative approach.
I seek leave to table photos of the artwork.
Leave granted.
Sometimes the pattern of life spins a number of coincidences into collision and suddenly your eyes open wide. The South Coast Register ran an article in October on crystal methamphetamine or ice. My initial reaction was that is awful, yet another social impact on our youth. Friday of the same week, I had been invited to a youth project located in the north of the electorate, Triple Care Farm, run by Mission Australia. It has been there for over 30 years and I must have driven past it a hundred times, never knowing just what was going on down that dirt track. Their work is phenomenal. They assist youth addicts to put their lives back together. The third event that took place tore my heart: a radio interview on 2SE with an anguished mother pleading for help for her teenage child addicted to ice and for herself, struggling to cope with no support. This problem of ice is bigger than us all. It will take all levels of government, community groups and schools to work together or we will be on the brink of losing a generation of children.
Crystal methamphetamine hydrochloride is a disgusting and dangerous drug. It is made in filthy, dirty places. Smoking, sniffing or injecting just once is once too often. It is very, very addictive. Some of our young people see it as a party drug, an experimental choice. Those young people have no idea that they will age faster, damage their teeth, develop ugly skin lesions, suffer violent episodes, destroy families or destroy themselves. The message we need to share is: don't try it, just don't.
On 20 November, we had an ice information night, listening to Gabriella from the Triple Care Farm, Will from Watershed, Ivan from Oolong House, Norm from the Salvation Army Shoalhaven Bridge program and Julie Clark from Family Drug Support. They spoke honestly and compassionately but also appealed for help. The use of ice is increasing exponentially in our region, yet there are not enough detox units nor safe rehab locations. There are strategies of support where about six months of post-rehab mentoring is essential for success. Two days before the forum, I was told of the horrendous events that an ice addict inflicts on their own family.
During the meetings, several personal journeys were shared with those in attendance. One grandmother is beside herself—her drug addicted daughter has four children. The grandmother is devastated that she cannot gain custody of these children. She has tried to keep the daughter's home as a good environment for these children, at times cleaning maggots from the kitchen where they eat. Different government departments are following different sets of rules and in the end the drug addicted mother retains custody.
One day before the forum, parents were calling saying: 'What can we do to help? We want things to change.' On the day of the forum, I was told by another family that they have lost three members of their family—one directly from an ice overdose and two by suicide because, apparently, they felt like failures. Since that time another family has called me. Their teenage daughter has been showing weird behaviour. On a day when mum challenged that behaviour, the daughter jumped on her, punching her. The father came in and threw the daughter on the bed. Government reporting then took place after false allegations were made and the family are now not allowed to see their own daughter.
We have a system that is siloed. We have to develop a strategy of complete cooperation. We need to urgently review the way our government agencies can collaborate. The information night was an important first step. We now have a volunteer who will be a facilitator to establish a local support group for families of addicts. In fact, their first meeting is tonight. We will consider all contact numbers for all services, consolidate them and put them in a leaflet, and distribute it to every pharmacy, doctors surgery, youth centre and community centre. Another group want to establish an advocacy group to push for government departments to work together and get all of us to work together. Some young attendees and charity service providers have asked: 'What does it look like?' 'How can we tell if someone is an addict?' 'How can we stop our young teenagers from thinking about trying this lethally addictive and disgusting drug?'
Education and awareness is now absolutely imperative. Triple Care Farm has a plan. It is ready to go for a 10-bed detox facility. They already have a million dollars of corporate money towards this $3 million facility. They need $3 million. It is my intention to fight hard for the early delivery of the remaining $2 billion because it will be the only youth detox unit in New South Wales. They treat children and youth from 16 to 24. Speaking to a practising clinician just last week, ice is now showing up in tox screens of 11- and 12-year-olds. Now is the time to act and we must all push for programs to make our youth aware that taking ice just once, just once, is once too often. All of us have to work together—never mind what side of politics, never mind what level of politics, the whole community has to be on the same page working together.
It has been a very good year for people in Melbourne. People in Melbourne want a clean economy and a caring society. They do not want Australia to become the kind of country where the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows, and where Australian education and health is turned into a US style system, where the first thing they do when you get sick is check your wallet. People in Melbourne also know that global warming is real and that, unless we get it under control, as we head towards every summer we are going to be worried about where the next bushfire is going to hit or how many people will die from the next heatwave.
People have had some setbacks this year. We have had a brutal government at the federal level that has gone out of its way to grow the gap between rich and poor. Instead of standing up to the wealthy and the powerful, it has tried to balance the budget by taking the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor. We have seen a federal government that, sadly, has wound back some of the action on global warming that the people of Melbourne secured in the last parliament, when the Greens held the balance of power.
But there is some good news. In Victoria, we have turfed out an uncaring Liberal government after one term—hopefully a sign of things to come for 'One-Term Tony' in 2016. We are on the verge of stopping the east-west tollway, which would divide communities of inner-city Melbourne and turn them into a rat's nest of on- and off-ramps; and we are on the verge, hopefully, of getting the investment in public transport that we so need.
As is becoming apparent to the rest of the country, Melbourne is going green. It is wonderful to end the year with Ellen Sandell in the seat of Melbourne in the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian parliament. I want to give a special thanks to Ellen and especially to her campaign team: Nina O'Connor, Claire Harman, India Prior, Jess Beames and all of the other doorknockers and volunteers who went out and knocked on 25,680 doors; made 12,000 calls; spent 2,300 hours entering data; hosted 284 events; and gave the people of Melbourne, for the first time ever, a voice in the lower house of the Victorian parliament, where Ellen is now able to push for action on global warming, the creation of a new national park and the investment in the public transport that we need.
In Richmond, Kathleen Maltzahn, running again for the Greens, achieved a record Greens vote. She and her team of Naomi Blackburn, Olivia Hartigan and Peter Ferguson, as well as everyone else who turned up, knocked on over 11,000 doors in Richmond and got a massive swing towards the Greens—it is now a marginal seat.
In Brunswick, just to the north, Tim Read put in a sterling effort. Without the seat even being a priority seat for the Greens—the same as Richmond—at this election we got a nine per cent swing. Tim Read, Alex Kline and the whole team there have turned Brunswick into a seat that at the next election is going to become part of 'Greenland', with the rest of us south of that Park Street border.
Similarly, Trent McCarthy and Kim Le Cerf over in Northcote put in an amazing effort. They got the Greens a 3.6 per cent swing in preferences, and it may end up being more when the final vote is in. Of course, south of the river in Prahran, where votes are still being counted, Sam Hibbins and all his team are still in the hunt for a seat there that might see a Liberal member in Prahran deposed and the Greens taking the first seat south of the river as well. We will see what happens, but, whatever the result is in Prahran, Sam Hibbins and his team have put in a sterling effort.
Statewide, thanks has to go to Larissa Brown, Jess McColl, Clare Quinn, Karen Gardham, Sean Vagg and the rest of the team. They have put in an incredible effort that may see the Greens now holding the balance of power in the upper house of the Victorian parliament—increasing our representation there. That is something we may not know for another couple of weeks, but it was a sterling achievement.
Lastly, as we head towards the end of the year, I want to thank everyone on my staff and our team. You are doing things that people never thought were possible. Only a little while ago, people were saying, 'The Greens can't survive in the inner city without preferences from the other parties.' We have proved them wrong. People are now thinking it is normal and usual to have Greens in both houses of parliament. The tide has turned, and to my staff and my team I say: thank you, you are doing wonderful things.
Ceduna is a town of about 4,000 in the far west of my electorate. It is predominantly a broadacre farming district but it also has other serious contributors to the economy. In particular, it produces the gypsum to make more than 80 per cent of the gyprock used in Australia annually, with more than 1.5 million tonnes shipped through the Thevenard port. Iluka exports around a quarter of a million tonnes of mineral sands a year from their Jacinth-Ambrosia project, also through the Port of Thevenard. Additionally, most of about 300,000 tonnes of grain a year go out through the port and 150,000 tonnes of salt.
It is a busy place, and on top of all this the Thevenard port always been the place for the local fishing industry to unload their catch. Unfortunately, though, with just one wharf, as the throughput of the port has increased so have the delays for fishermen wanting to unload their catch; they have been held up while waiting for space at the wharf.
The Ceduna council, in conjunction with Regional Development Australia Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula Inc., developed a plan to install a dedicated marine-unloading facility to alleviate these delays, which are having a material impact on the businesses. Following much hard work, they were excited that they had ticked all the boxes. They understood that the advisory panel established to prioritise RDA allocations for the minister had recommended the project for funding—an amount of $5.2 million for a total project cost of $8.8 million. It was in the bag—or so they thought. Then they learned that the minister had not approved their funding. What had happened? They knew not.
That was until the release of the Australian National Audit Office report into funding rounds 3 and 4 of the Regional Development Australia Fund last week. It found that the minister—the member for Ballarat—had overruled the recommendations of her own appointed committee. In fact, a quarter of the projects recommended, covering 48 per cent of the total expenditure of the program, the minister chose not to approve—including the Ceduna fish unloader. And guess what? Eighty per cent of the projects she chose not to fund were in coalition seats. And where did the money go?
Apparently it went into metropolitan seats like Fremantle in Western Australia—$10 million—a very regional seat; I am sure my friend, the member for O'Connor, would agree! The seat of McMahon in Sydney, where the shadow Treasurer sits—got $1.3 million. There was $7 million for a project that was not recommended in the seat of Wakefield in South Australia. Back in New South Wales there was $10 million to the seat of Charlton. These are all Labor seats and all with candidates in trouble as the election approached. So 80 per cent of the projects recommended for funding and subsequently cut came from coalition-held seats and 48 per cent of that funding went to projects not recommended by the minister's panel—the panel that she appointed.
It is interesting to note what has happened in Ceduna since that time, where the project we thought we had in the bag fell over. Last month, A Raptis & Sons, who have been long-term users and long-term supporters of the Thevenard port, advised that they would be withdrawing their operations from Ceduna. They advised the mayor, the Premier and the RDA and since that time they have been prevailed upon to stay a little longer to see if this fish unloader can be landed, as it were.
I would point out that A Raptis & Sons employ about 30 people in the Ceduna district. They spend $12 million annually—$12 million in a town of 4,000 people—and spend $57,000 on the local air service. That brings crews in, rotating them in and out. Rex Air runs a daily service into Ceduna and it would not be one of their great profit-making enterprises, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The loss of this business to that airline could even threaten that long-term service. So these are serious ramifications, and all because a project that was approved for RDA funding was overruled by the minister.
The Ceduna community has commitments from another two trawlers at least that, should the project be landed—should the fish unloader be built—they would operate in the area. That would make four or possibly five. At this stage they have applications going back into the Building Stronger Regions Fund and I will be supporting those strongly. I hope the state government comes on board. This really has been a tawdry episode in pork-barrelling of the first order.
I am very pleased to rise on this occasion to speak to the important question of operational sovereignty. As the Abbott government seems poised to ignore expert advice and send the manufacture of our future submarine fleet overseas, the question of operational sovereignty should be front of mind. I rise to remind those opposite who have a short memory, of the vital impact that intellectual property disputes have had on Australian Defence Force capabilities in the past. Operational sovereignty and the ability to access the intellectual property associated with our defence capabilities is essential to ensure that the defence of our nation is not undermined by legal disputes, the inability to repair or upgrade our equipment, or that our forces are left vulnerable to capability gaps.
In his final speech to the House of Representatives, Kim Beazley revealed that the Australian Hornet fleet—fighter planes—was significantly undermined throughout the 1980s by this lack of operational sovereignty. He revealed that the radar system on the Hornets, provided by the United States, was set up in such a way that our pilots were unable to shoot down a whole range of potential threats in our region. The radar system was set up and designed for a European battle space and European threats, and as a consequence was not suitable for potential threats in our strategic regional environment. It could not identify a whole range of aircraft that were operating in this region. Kim Beazley went on to express the frustration he experienced in trying to gain access to the radar codes necessary to make our Hornet fleet fully operational. After five long years of frustrations, during which time the United States delayed sharing these codes with Australia, Australia was finally forced to spy on one of our closest allies simply to ensure that our defence forces could do their job.
The Collins class submarine also experienced difficulties in relation to intellectual property challenges in the 1990s. When, in 1998-99, cracking problems were found with the propeller system, Australia sought to send a number of boats to the United States for analysis and advice. However, the intellectual property for these propellers was held by the Swedish submarine design corporation Kockums. This led to years of legal disputes and they were only resolved in 2004. We should never let the defence of Australia be undermined in this way again.
In 2013, after this extensive negotiations, the former Labor government signed an agreement with Sweden on intellectual property rights for submarine design and technology. This agreement gave effect to Australia's right to use and disclose Swedish intellectual property rights for complex submarine design and technology, with implications not only for the maintenance of the current Collins class submarines but also for the proposed evolved Collins class. Those opposite will remember that even the bumbling Minister for Defence was forced to concede, upon taking office, that the performance of our Collins class submarines had be completely transformed by Labor's reinvestment in the sustainment of those boats and in particular the Coles review.
We have found through that hard work in the Collins class that the operational availability of those boats has now reached the point that on any one day there is a 90 per cent likelihood that we have two boats available and a 60 per cent chance that we have three boats available. That accomplishment is an important indicator about what Australia can achieve in this important space. But all that would be as for nothing if those critically important operational sovereignty questions had not been resolved.
The kangaroo and emu on our national crest speak to a country that is determined never to move backwards—to learn from the past and strive to always improve. Yet, in our most important defence procurement project in decades, the Abbott government seems determined to repeat those mistakes of the past—to undermine operational sovereignty and send the manufacture overseas. Everyone in this parliament is aware of the rumours that are abounding about the fact that the Future Submarine project might be sent to Japan to see their workforces and their shipyards. One key question that the government should look at as it breaks its promise to build an evolved Collins class in Adelaide, one key question that they cannot website of as they abandon the Australian shipbuilding industry, is: how, by building those boats in Japan, can they continue to preserve Australia's ownership over the IP—the IP that makes sure those boats are a sovereign capability of this nation, to make sure that it is the Australian government that has complete control over that strategic capability; and that we can sustain, maintain and upgrade those boats without the long and wretched history of legal disputes that has so often marred our procurement history?
All Australians love sport, and tennis has the benefit of being a sport that anyone can play, and, importantly, can continue to play in their more senior years. For a period of time in Queensland tennis was neglected. While it has always been a moderately popular sport, it has often been pushed to the side for more sensational or fashionable sports of the day. However, over the past few years, under the influence of Tennis Queensland presidents Ashley Cooper and Ken Laffey, tennis in Queensland has flourished. The introduction of the Brisbane International has been instrumental in the popularity of tennis in Queensland and has allowed tennis to return to the spotlight, where it belongs.
The establishment of a new international standard tennis centre at Tennyson and then the development of an international tournament is a huge achievement. Ashley and Ken, along with Chris Freeman, are all to be commended for their part in this. With Ashley stepping down, Ken has recently moved onto the board of Tennis Australia, and although it is a shame to see such a hardworking and dedicated president go, I believe he has left Tennis Queensland in the best shape it can be. He has been a standout in transforming Tennis Queensland and making it the leading institution it is today. I am delighted that his achievements have been recognised.
Ken has worked to acknowledge and recognise our past tennis greats, and it has been wonderful to see them at Tennis Queensland events—from Ashley Cooper, Daphne Fancutt, Mal Anderson, Wendy Turnbull, Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Rod Laver to Pat Rafter. Next year, Roy Emerson will be with us. Seeing Rod Laver and Rodger Federer last January at the Brisbane International said it all—Brisbane is back on the map as a top tennis city.
The opening of the new Frew Park to replace the former Milton Tennis Centre is another step forward for tennis in Queensland. The Brisbane City Council invested $12.6 million dollars in the project, aptly named Frew Park after Robert Frew, who was President of the Queensland Lawn Tennis Association from 1910 to 1930. He was the driving force behind the original Milton Tennis Centre. The centre honours other Queensland tennis greats with the Roy Emerson Tennis Centre and the Wendy Turnbull Green. Another familiar sight is the giant tennis racquet that used to adorn the Milton Tennis Centre, now visible as you drive down Milton Road. After the old site was demolished it was bought by hairdressing entrepreneur, Steve Ackerie—better known as Stephan—who has now returned it to its original home. The new park is a wonderful community hub that has a range of activities for all ages and abilities. The Roy Emerson Tennis Centre, within the park, will include six courts and a rebound wall. I attended the opening on the weekend, with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Graham Quirk, and it is an amazing place that is sure to draw crowds of people who want to get back into tennis and include their whole family.
It was great to have two original tennis legends, Daphne and Trevor Fancutt, at the opening, and for them to see the centre restored and relive many tennis memories. Frew Park contains so much history, and the credit and honour that has been given to our former tennis greats is important as new generations of tennis players come through. It will be not only a place for playing and learning but also a place for socialising, which is one of the many benefits of the sport of tennis. The inclusion of the massive Wendy Turnbull Green and the Arena play space means it really is a place that encourages involvement and opportunities for all ages.
This year's Brisbane International will once again see tennis greats from all over the world come to Brisbane to compete. It really is an outstanding tournament, which attracts some of the world's best players. As vice-patron of Tennis Queensland—and the only ambassador not to have won a grand slam, yet!—I am thrilled with the growing profile of tennis throughout the whole of Queensland, and I look forward to the 2015 Brisbane International to showcase once again to the world that Brisbane is the leading tennis city.
Yesterday a litany of government speakers, in defence of the corporate sector—which means its financial trusts—and against the interests of charities in this country, cited the figure that there are 600,000 not-for-profits in this country. Today, the day before the Werriwa volunteers awards, I want to talk about some of the people involved in the sector in my electorate. I cannot, of course, name the winners tomorrow, but I would mention these people.
Sister Patricia Murphy, of the Catholic order known as the Brown Sisters, has resided in Minto, a largely housing department suburb, for the past 25 years and has always been there to provide support for families in need in times of financial and emotional stress. I am pleased to see also that, in the redevelopment of that suburb with mixed housing usage for the future, she has accepted a residence in the area.
Jacqui Kirkby, an owner of the historic Varroville estate, has been a long-term campaigner against Sydney's only proposal in an urban area for coal seam gas. She is also on the Community Consultative Committee for AGL but, more importantly, in recent months has taken a lead against the deplorable move by the Catholic cemeteries trust for a massive development in an area previously known as the Scenic Hills. This is the thin end of the wedge to undermine that recreational scenic area for further corporate development.
The Bangalay Senior Citizens Group—more particularly Gail Holt and Jan Wardrop from Macquarie Fields—provide facilities for older residents over three days each week: Mondays are meeting days; Wednesdays are craft, morning tea and lunch, bringing together seniors on a social level to enjoy each other's company; and on Friday nights they provide movies. They also provide a service of welcoming new residents into the Macquarie Fields suburb. Relocations are often very difficult, as people lose touch with prior families and friends. Macquarie Fields is a suburb that in the past has had significant challenges, so that is a very important service.
Christine Frame, also from Macquarie Fields, has been active on a variety of fronts. She has helped form the Liverpool Hospital Society Colonial Club to help raise needed funds for the hospital, which will soon be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. She has also been involved with the South Western Sydney TPI Welfare and Social Club, helping disabled veterans, and the Liverpool Quilters, and she is President of the Ingleburn RSL Women's Auxiliary, helping raise funds for the Cancer Council and the Ingham research centre.
Laurel Todd, from Chipping Norton just outside the electorate—but active within it—has been working as a volunteer driver for Meals on Wheels delivery since 1995. She obviously has helped many frail aged and disadvantaged and their carers.
The Denham Court Association, and more particularly Lyndell Painter, have taken a leading role over the last year in resistance to the move to widen and expand Campbelltown Road. The particular area it goes through is one of the remaining idyllic semirural areas of Sydney, and this measure is strongly resisted by residents of Denham Court.
The Youth Solutions Board—the whole committee there—focuses on youth drug and alcohol prevention and health promotion. This service aims to empower young people, promote safer choices and build a stronger community through its activities and projects. I very much congratulate its endeavours and its success in recent years.
Dulcie Davis from Leppington is the President of the Liverpool Legacy Widows Club and the Liverpool War Widows. At 84 years of age, her effort in helping local widows is extremely commendable.
Suzanne Burton, also from Denham Court, volunteers with Liverpool Meals on Wheels as a driver. She has been with the organisation for 35 years and also assists with the Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation and HammondCare.
Finally on this front, I want to recognise the work of our Anzac committee: Ken Foster, Wal Glynn, Ray James, David Beddie, Learna Coupe, Ron Brown and, from my staff, Vicki Meadows. The meetings that they have had over the last year have often been dealing with difficult analysis and conclusions by the federal department to try to push through local grants. They have succeeded in regard to a granite fixture at the Wall of Remembrance at the Ingleburn RSL club; the engraving of the RSL Ode on black granite and its installation at the memorial gardens; a gala day incorporating a Beating the Retreat performance by Army units and the Australian Army Band; financing a memorial at Casula High School; and the Guarding the Home Front exhibition to be shown at the Casula Powerhouse, one of Western Sydney's major cultural outlets. So I commend that committee for the work it has done on a voluntary basis over the last year.
Firstly I would like to congratulate the graduating class of 2014 on completion of their secondary education. In WA, last week was schoolies week, and around my electorate of O'Connor there was much cause for celebration on reaching this great milestone. Ahead is the beginning of their brave new adventure as adults, and I know many will be contemplating tertiary education. So I not only wish one and all a merry Christmas but say: may the new year bring great exam results and the opportunity to fulfil your dreams.
In 2015 some of the graduates from my electorate will be fortunate to gain acceptance into one of the great regional university campuses or institutes of technology and be able to study while living at home with a support network of family and friends to ease this transition. Others will be moving hundreds of kilometres away from home and setting up a new life to study in the city. Some will live in fully catered halls of residence on, or close to, campus. Others will live off campus in rental accommodation, cooking and cleaning for themselves and commuting to university and college each day. In O'Connor, however, an overwhelming majority of high school graduates will be taking a gap year as a necessary stepping stone to eligibility for youth allowance to facilitate the big move away from home to further their education. I take this opportunity to commend the achievements of all rural and regional students who, despite their isolation from many cultural, sporting and academic opportunities, continue to perform admirably against their metropolitan counterparts.
Deputy Speaker, did you know that, in 2013, students from non-metropolitan areas had an 85 per cent chance of receiving an offer for a place at university, compared to 81 per cent of city kids? Yet, in that same year, less than 62 per cent of those country students would accept their offer, compared to over 73 per cent of their urban counterparts. Of those that accepted, over 16 per cent of country students deferred their enrolment—more than double the deferral rate of city students. These statistics do not take into account those who did not accept a place but chose to take a gap year and apply for a place the following year.
So what does the average country kid do in this break between secondary school and resuming studies—travel the world? Buy a car? Get some life experience? Guess again. Nearly 80 per cent of remote-dwelling students cited 'saving to go to uni' as their rationale, versus 40 per cent of metropolitan school leavers. And 'achieving independent status for Centrelink payments' was over three times more likely to be a country kid's response than when an urban school leaver was asked the same question. Astoundingly, many country kids who do defer resume their studies, despite the obvious attraction of a disposable income and a peer group of employed friends. However, without eligibility for government financial assistance, 15 per cent fewer will return to take up their place in a tertiary institution. This same study deemed that youth allowance eligibility did not influence metropolitan students at all in their decisions to resume studies.
Tragically, many country students take a gap year and work full time to earn the requisite $22,237 threshold to be considered independent for youth allowance purposes only to find that their parents' income is still taken into account and they miss out. For country kids seeking to qualify for youth allowance as 'dependent', I hear many stories of parents failing the eligibility criteria. A joint parental income of less than $48,837 will qualify for a full youth allowance, with benefits cutting out entirely at $103,619 for one child studying away from home. Many parents have a farm or a business asset worth over the threshold, although many dispute that they could sell up and realise its worth. And a caravan on the coast or a small flat bought for the kids to live in to study will blow out the family asset test eligibility criteria. These are real stories from real families in my electorate.
I came to this position as the member for O'Connor on the strength of my commitment to make equitable access to education a priority for all the youngsters in my electorate. In this my first year, I have been working to bring this to the attention of both the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, and the Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews. I know that both ministers are committed to finding a solution to the barriers faced by regional students accessing tertiary education.
Meanwhile, I urge all school leavers from my electorate and throughout rural and regional Australia to fully investigate their options when considering the next step in their education. Please contact my office if we can be of any assistance.
I would like to conclude by saying to O'Connor's class of 2014: I am proud of your achievements thus far, and I will do my utmost to ease the transition into the next exciting phase of your lives. Enjoy your special time with your friends and family and have a great Christmas.
This tie promotes the AFC Asian Cup, a competition kicking off in roughly 36 days, eight hours and 40 minutes time and a massive event for football, to be held here in Australia. When I think about that, or whenever I watch packed A-league games, I remember what it was like to support soccer many, many years ago. Most kids played cricket, tennis, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules or netball. They rarely played soccer. But times change, so do the names.
We watch and play football now not soccer. And we like what we see: Australia earning kudos on the world stage. No Australian can claim exclusively to have started the game here, but two figures remain household names when it comes to its evolution. One is the late, great, former national captain Johnny Warren, who was instrumental in Australia's first World Cup foray in 1974. The other bloke made Australia his home in 1957. The few who knew him then knew him as Laszlo Urge. The many of us who know him today know him by his voice and his presence on TV, the voice of Mr 'Football', the voice of the one and only Les Murray—the boy from the outskirts of Budapest, Hungary; schooled in Wollongong; bullied for his mum's choice of garlic and paprika spice salami sandwiches. I reckon he was Australian football's Cyrano de Bergerac, wooing a reluctant nation to unlock its affections for the beautiful game.
For those reaching our shores in the mid-1950s, it was not always easy to get a start in a suburban club. Many of our newer citizens started at the newest clubs, clubs that left little doubt where their players and supporters originated—football's UN; teams across leagues and pitches; St George-Budapest; Hellas; Alexander; Sydney Croatia; Sydney Olympic; Marconi; Melita Eagles; and Newbold Apia. Australia's entree to world football stage came in 1963—officially accepted by FIFA and ironically copping a $50,000 fine for poaching overseas players to a national team that contained just three Australian born players.
In 1974, we saw the national team line up in the World Cup for the very first time. The 1970s and 1980s saw good days and rocky days for the NSL. There was an agonising wait to see our Socceroos once again qualify for a World Cup. While it took decades for an Australian side to feature in a World Cup, there was the familiar Australian voice of Les Murray, dissecting and analysing matches for bleary-eyed fans up at obscene hours to watch a game played out a world away. In his 2011 book The World Game, Les Murray astutely observed that football is as much the Australian game as some others we claim as our own. He reasoned that just about every other sport we play here is imported—cricket, rugby codes, tennis and even Aussie rules, which is variation of Gaelic football.
Every sport has its large personalities on and off the court, ground or pitch. In Australian football, there is no larger figure than Les Murray. The man loves football and it loves him back. It was sad earlier this year to hear that Les Murray's familiar smile, big glasses, white hair and sharp suits would no longer be a staple on SBS every time there was a big game somewhere in the world. The 2014 World Cup in Brazil was his last as the anchor of SBS's much watched coverage. SBS first broadcast the final of the FIFA World Cup in 1986 with Les at the helm and the first full broadcast of the FIFA World Cup was in1990. Listen to this list of hits: 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014—eight World Cups across 34 years; Mr 'Football' there, hosting on SBS. But Les had the good judgement to know when to blow the whistle on a full-time commentating career in what is certainly extra time. To coin a line from his great mate Johnny Warren, he is going to allow himself to finally sit back and smell the flowers he has grown.
There are now 1.9 million participants of football in Australia. There is no better sign of this success than in my own backyard with the Western Sydney Wanderers, a club just 2½ years old and now officially the best club in Asia. Les Murray can savour sizeable credit for the incredible part he played as an ambassador for the game, recognised for this when he was made a member of the Order of Australia in 2006. But we cannot sit back and expect endless success which is why I and many others were happy to support Les in his dream to set up the Johnny Warren Football Foundation to develop future players and all those needed to play their role in the growth of the game. As a fan of the sport, and I am sure I speak for so many in this House, and on behalf of many fans, thank you for your service, Les Murray, and in the words that Laszlo would remember: [non-English language not transcribed] congratulations, well played.
That was fantastic. I thank the member for Chifley. Hear, hear from all of us.
Christmas on the Central Coast is a time of celebration. Whether it be in MacMasters Beach, Mangrove Mountain or everywhere across my electorate, families and communities really come together at this special time of year. For a mum like me, with my husband Chris and my two young children Oscar and Mollie-Joy, and for mums and dads right around the Central Coast, it is also a time to plan what presents to buy and what food to cook. Whatever you need to put under the Christmas tree or in the pantry, today I want to join with the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson MP, in encouraging people to shop locally.
Small businesses and family enterprise are the economic life blood of communities like ours. We need to encourage and nurture small business men and women, who take great risks and provide fantastic, outstanding local job opportunities. One of the best ways we can do this, of course, is to support them at the till by shopping locally, especially at Christmas. So I calling on people in my electorate, wherever you are on the Central Coast, to get out there and shop locally this month.
Where better to start than with a Christmas tree. This Sunday, I will be heading out to Gosford Race Club where the Rotary Clubs from across the Central Coast are raising important funds for Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and other great causes, and I really want to acknowledge the work of Greg Groppenbacher, for his work in advocating for that very, very important cause. Just up the road, in Gosford City, you will see a hive of activity, just as it was at weekend's Christmas Parade which I had the honour to join in. Hundreds and hundreds of local people were at Kibble Park, right next to one of the landmarks of Gosford City, the Imperial Shopping Centre. Imagine what this will be like in a few short years, when the coalition's delivery of 600 jobs into Gosford CBD in a purpose-built Commonwealth agency will start to see great results for that city. Gosford is a fantastic city and it is a city that the coalition government is committed to rejuvenating.
There are so many other opportunities to shop locally in my electorate. There is the popular Erina Fair and the nearby Fountain Plaza at Erina as well. If you are down on the peninsula, there is Deepwater Plaza at Woy Woy, the Peninsula Plaza on Blackwell Road and the fabulous Umina Beach shops on West Street, Umina. At West Gosford, you can get some outstanding fruit and vegetables from Christian and George at The Fruit Spot, or buy some locally grown lilies or outstanding rainbow roses for Christmas. You can also get wonderful, wonderful hams from Cafe Jam—just down the road from my home at East Gosford.
We have local shopping villages right across the Central Coast that are adored by locals—whether it be at Saratoga, Kincumber, Green Point, Point Clare—where I grew up—Koolewong, Ettalong Beach, Kariong, and those wonderful boutique shops near my home. Taste Grocer and Cafe is one of them. Another one of the best places to capture this unique village atmosphere that we have on Central Coat is at Killcare. Time sadly prevents me from mentioning all of the shops at Killcare, but I would mention the art gallery there, and the Fat Goose Café is also a wonderful place to unwind. These are great places to shop locally and enjoy the best the Central Coast has to offer. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention my own local cafe West Gosford at the Riverside Business Park, which overflows with people at this time of year—in fact, every day all year round. People get outstanding coffee at Jimmy G's from James, Tara and the team—and I do wish them well.
I would also like to encourage people on the coast to spend up at one of the many markets that are open most weekends in school playgrounds, church halls, and parklands. Over the summer, these places are also a popular destination for the thousands of visitors we welcome to our region. On 13 December there are the Kariong Markets at the Progress Hall. Artists and musicians will be a centrepiece at the popular Avoca beachside market, which returns on 18 January 18 with more than 100 stalls of local produce and goods. And in its 7th year is the famous Christmas Fair at the tranquil location of Mt Penang Gardens—and I will certainly be there this Sunday with my husband and two kids.
Our record speaks for itself in supporting small business. We have abolished the carbon tax; cut over $2 billion in red and green tape costs; undertaken a review of the competition framework; signed free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea, which will have significant benefits; and, in July next, we will reduce the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent. On the Central Coast we are investing 600 new jobs, as I mentioned earlier, which will have a direct multiplier effect of hundreds of more jobs, and we are keeping our streets safer, with $680,000 to install CCTV cameras and to help protect shoppers, employers and employees. So I am encouraging visitors and residents alike to get out and about and shop locally on the Central Coast.
On 11 December last year, GM announced the closure of local production in Australia. This announced the end of what has been a great tradition in manufacturing in this country. It was a very sad day for my electorate.
On that day, 11 December, parliament was sitting and we were greeted by a headline in the Australian Financial Review saying, 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. That was the story, that day, on the front page of the Financial Review. I remember that day very clearly. It was a devastating day for my electorate, for the people who work at Holden and for all of those who rely on Holden—not just for their jobs but for the community's wellbeing and for their pride in making something in this country. I vividly remember reading, in the days before that announcement, an article by Phil Coorey in the Australian Financial Review. It said:
… Treasurer Joe Hockey, backed by Abbott, stood in Parliament and told Holden to pee or get off the pot. At that very instant, this column received a text message from a Holden executive who was watching question time. “They’re telling us to leave.”
The only thing of substance Holden referred to in their statement at the time about the decision to close production was the value of the Australian dollar, which at that time was very high indeed—about US$1.10, as quoted in that statement. Currency appreciation had a devastating effect on Australian manufacturing—and make no mistake: it had a big effect all throughout our economy. I know many wineries in my electorate felt the effects, as did hay exporters and the like, all of whom had very big structural challenges because of the value of the Australian dollar. It is the debate this nation should have been having, because it had a devastating effect. With the GFC passing and the commodities boom passing, we have seen the Australian dollar fall to US84c. At that exchange rate, Holden could have been exporting cars to the United States, both to the police car market and to the rear wheel drive performance market. We would be exporting now had the government shown any sense at all, but of course they did not.
The government made a calculation—and we know they made this calculation because the Treasurer admitted it on Fran Kelly's program only recently. Fran Kelly asked:
So, what will your message be to your colleagues?
The Treasurer, Mr Hockey, replied:
Well, that the economy is on a good trajectory; that we have delivered this year. That you know, there would not have been any free trade agreements if we hadn’t of made the hard decisions about industry assistance at the beginning of the year. So, there would have been no free trade agreements if Labor were elected.
What he is saying there is that he sold out Australian auto workers to make it easier to get free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea. That is what Mr Hockey is telling the Australian people. He sold auto workers down the river so that it would be easier to sign these trade agreements, so that they could brag about signing these trade agreements—agreements they have not yet even put before parliament or given the Australian people the detail of.
When the Prime Minister had his reset, he bragged about the considerable achievements of the government. In doing so, he mentioned:
… responding to the closure down the track of Holden and Toyota.
So he has listed that as one of his achievements—closing car manufacturing in this country! This government has gone completely bananas. They have cost good Australians their jobs and they have cost us our manufacturing base. It is a disgrace that they are now trying to turn it into something that was 'inevitable' or something to be bragged about or something to be 'managed'. This is disgrace. The jobs of all of those people will hang around the neck of this government—make no mistake—from now until polling day.
I stand to give the last speech for the government in the Federation Chamber for the year. As we all know, it is not easy having the last word in this place so this is a good feeling. In fact, there is, for the most part, a lot of good feeling about as we end the sitting year and move into Christmas.
It has been a year of huge achievement for the government. We set out to build a strong and prosperous economy and we have put the foundations firmly in place to do just that. The government has created over 100,000 new jobs in its first year. We have started investment in massive infrastructure programs—road, rail, bridge building, telecommunications and the Badgerys Creek airport—the likes of which have not been seen in Australia for a generation.
We have signed historic trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, and the economic benefits will be felt for decades. We have scrapped damaging and unnecessary taxes. We have made Australia safe and secure and reclaimed our borders by turning back the boats. We have backed the small business sector by cutting red tape and compliance costs. We have reprioritised the rollout of fast broadband at a cheaper cost and far sooner than Labor could ever have delivered.
Across my electorate of Hume, which stretches from the edge of Canberra to Picton in Sydney's south, I have sent a newsletter to local businesses reminding them of the great successes we have enjoyed. In scrapping the carbon tax, businesses like Gusollio's Hair and Spa at Young have seen power bills plummet. Owner Melissa McColl says:
The carbon tax was an impost I couldn't afford. If the power bills had continued to go up, I was looking at having to cut back on staff.
Tahmoor Colliery in the north of my electorate says that the carbon tax made Australian industry 'less competitive'. Owner of Hilltop Meats at Young, Ted Campbell, says that now the tax is gone costs of production have fallen and that his abattoir can operate in the highly competitive global marketplace. This is proof that our policies are working.
Business is thanking the coalition government for a framework for growth and prosperity. In cutting red tape, we have taken the pressure off small businesses, which is helping them create more jobs. Where there are no GST reporting requirements, 45,000 small businesses Australia wide will no longer have to lodge a business activity statement. Another 402,000 small businesses will now be exempt from the pay-as-you-go requirements.
Another great success in my electorate has been the reprioritised NBN rollout. Just earlier this week I was able to announce an additional 27,000 premises will be connected to the fixed line network across Hume in the next 18 months. Fibre will be rolled out in a number of the larger towns in my electorate, including Goulburn, Yass, Cowra and Young, as well as across the Wollondilly shire and parts of the Wingecarribee shire. Fixed wireless towers are going up across the west of Hume, with services already switched on outside Young and Cowra and in smaller locations.
This government has had a great year of achievement, particularly given the enormous clean-up job we were left with. We have taken huge strides forward in clearing the debris of six years of Labor—financial debris that has left Australian families struggling with mounting debt. As I travel around, I often hear that families are most concerned, not necessarily about national debt and deficit, but about their own personal budgets. There is a straightforward answer here and a message for the new year: the fastest way to pay back debt, be it government, business or household debt, is to have rising incomes. To deliver rising incomes in the coming decade, we do not need to work harder but we do need to work smarter. Working smarter will deliver rising incomes. It always has and it always will.
But back to my final word. After a busy and successful year, my first in federal parliament and the first of a new government, we should not be too quick to point to failings or missed opportunities. The government is steering a steady course to economic stability and prosperity and that should be a great comfort for all Australians. On behalf of the government, I wish all of Australia a happy and safe festive season. I wish my parliamentary colleagues, with a special mention to you, Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas. May you all eat lots of cherries from Young and have a well-earned break with family and friends.
I think we all agree with that one as well! I thank the member for Hume.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11.39 .