Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Speaker, as you are aware, in my capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee, each sitting Monday at this time I present petitions and ministerial responses to the House. This morning there is a sizeable amount of petitions, but occasionally—as was the case last week—I may present only ministerial responses. On the rare occasions that this occurs, it does not mean that the committee has not considered any petitions at its previous meeting, rather that they may all be for presentation by members at another time.
Members note 13 has information for members on presenting a petition and is available on the members' portal. Of course, before presenting a petition, members must first refer the petition to the committee to certify that it complies with House standing orders for petitions. After the committee meets and performs its function of checking that petitions comply with the House's requirements, the secretariat very efficiently prepares advice and the petitions for presentation. By the afternoon following the committee's meeting the petitions are usually available for collection from the Petitions office.
If a member has agreed to present a petition, they must make arrangements with the relevant whip for speaking time in either the House or Federation Chamber. Standing order 207(b) provides that members may present petitions during: 90-second statements in the House and Federation Chamber; three-minute constituency statements in the Federation Chamber; adjournment debates in the House or Federation Chamber; and grievance debates in the Federation Chamber.
While it may not always be possible for a member to present the petition straightaway, I would encourage members who have made a commitment to present a petition to do so in a timely manner. One of the reasons this is important is that, where appropriate, under standing order 209 petitions may be referred to relevant ministers for a response. The petitions that I present in this timeslot are promptly referred. However, others awaiting presentation by a member cannot be referred until presented in the House or Federation Chamber.
When presenting a petition, members should indicate that the petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. Standing order 208 enables members presenting to speak on the subject of the petition. This is something I cannot do when presenting petitions in my capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee.
The act of presenting a petition does not necessarily indicate members endorse its contents. Members may simply be serving constituents by ensuring their concerns are brought to the attention of the House. For petitions that do not comply with standing order requirements, some members may still choose to present these as documents and discuss the relevant issues. However, they will not attract any of the benefits of the formal petitions process—importantly, these are not referred to ministers for response. As I have often remarked in previous statements, members have an important role to play in supporting the longstanding right of citizens to petition their parliament.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 35th AIPA General Assembly held in Vientiane in September 2014. The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, or AIPA, was established by the parliaments of five ASEAN member countries in 1977. Its aims are to encourage cooperation, collaboration and communication among parliaments in the region and to contribute to the goals and aspirations of ASEAN through inter-parliamentary cooperation. Over the decades, AIPA has expanded to now include the parliaments of 10 ASEAN member countries and 12 observer parliaments.
The 35th AIPA General Assembly was held last year in Vientiane, Laos. As leader of the Australian parliamentary delegation to AIPA, it was an honour to represent Australia in this important parliamentary forum for South-East Asian Nations. The General Assembly focused on strengthening parliamentary cooperation and dealt with important regional concerns including those relating to gender, political security matters, sustainable economic growth, development through entrepreneurship and public health issues.
In addition, the Australian parliamentary delegation participated in a formal dialogue session with parliamentarians from ASEAN countries, where we discussed new ways to enhance cooperation and engagement between our parliaments. The warm and productive discussions we had with our regional colleagues covered a wide range of opportunities for parliamentary cooperation, including capacity building in relation to library, research and transcription services and legislative and scrutiny capacity for parliamentarians; increased parliamentary exchanges; and cooperation to address people trafficking, disaster management, agriculture, human resource development and financial services. It is quite important to note here, as well, that there was quite a lot of discussion about the assistance in the bureaucracy that we have provided.
The dialogue session in particular provided an excellent opportunity for our delegation to highlight and celebrate the many positive and productive bilateral relationships Australia has with ASEAN nations. Australia has had a multilateral relationship with ASEAN since 1974, and our attendance at the 35th AIPA General Assembly was therefore a very important opportunity to reinforce Australia's ongoing commitment to and engagement with the South-East Asian region. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to record our thanks to the host, the parliament of the Lao PDR, for its warm hospitality and a well organised AIPA General Assembly.
In addition to representing Australia at the AIPA General Assembly, the delegation also took the opportunity to attend meetings with Australian business representatives, volunteers and non-government organisations working in Laos. The delegation also visited an Australian mining operation in Laos and was able to see the positive and sustainable outcomes this has had for nearby communities. Overall, we were very impressed with the breadth and effectiveness of Australia's engagement with Laos through these committed and passionate individuals and organisations.
Before concluding, I would like to take this opportunity to express the delegation's appreciation to the Australian embassy in Vientiane, very ably led by His Excellency John Williams. The ambassador and his team made arrangements for the delegation's meetings and engagements beyond the AIPA General Assembly, which contributed to the visit's overall success. The team at the embassy were also very generous with their time and support for the delegation. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my colleague on the delegation, the honourable member for Moreton, whose long held interest in the region and enthusiastic participation in proceedings made a valuable contribution to our formal and informal discussions during the visit. I commend the report to the House.
I thank the member for Tangney for his very extensive contribution explaining the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly delegation visit to Vientiane, Laos. Such delegations to ASEAN member countries have a long history, going back to 1977. The idea is that parliamentarians getting together on a personal level helps contribute to the goals and aspirations of ASEAN through this inter-parliamentary cooperation. Certainly I made some good friends, particularly in Myanmar with some other parliamentarians focused on human rights.
It was a great opportunity, well led by the member for Tangney. We were also accompanied, Mr Speaker, by your predecessor, the member for Mackellar—the previous Speaker. Obviously she was there trying to catch up with the ASEAN people who would be voting in the election she was trying out for, a little bit unsuccessfully. But she added to the delegation as well.
The first time I went to Vientiane was as a backpacker in March 1989, just as Laos had opened up to tourism. I was just saying to the member for Moncrieff that I ran into a journalist from the Gold Coast Bulletin on that trip. It is amazing to think of how much Vientiane has changed between then and when I back there with the member for Tangney last year to the 35th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly.
Obviously the formal dialogue sessions with the ASEAN countries are always very important, with very constructive discussions. We covered a range of topics. It is amazing what issues are raised, particularly the economy and the opportunities that are coming in the ASEAN region as they move towards having one set of economic arrangements. Obviously I think that is a long way off at the moment, but it was quite positive.
I particularly enjoyed attending the meetings with the Australian business representatives and the volunteers, particularly at the organisation that supports the victims of landmines and at the other non-government organisations that work in Laos. I think Australia is well served by the NGOs that we have that work with our embassies and, like the member for Tangney, I particularly acknowledge our ambassador, His Excellency Mr John Williams, who oversees a great team with good connections throughout the country. We enjoyed our visit up to the north of Laos to see the Australian mining operation and the great work that they are doing. It is a lean operation with a great environmental record and a particularly strong focus on ensuring that there is employment for all of the communities, particularly some of the minority groups in Laos.
When I first went to Vientiane in 1989 I stayed with some friends who were working for the United Nations. They were helping to set up the phone service there. In their front yard that there was a fish pond, and it was while I was staying at their house in Vientiane back in 1989 that I got the inspiration for that metaphor that I used in my first novel, The Twelfth Fish. So it was great to go back many years later not as a backpacker—certainly not misbehaving like we did as backpackers—although the member for Tangney and I got to see many parts of Vientiane.
I thank him for his leadership and for the great contribution it has made to interparliamentary connections. Obviously Australia has some economic challenges, but there are opportunities that come from connecting with our ASEAN neighbours. I particularly thank the member for Tangney for his contribution and commend the report to the House.
I rise to update the House on the delegation undertaken by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in association with its current inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Countering violent extremism and protecting national security are amongst the most critical issues facing Australia at the moment, but they occur in a global context.
To inform the current citizenship inquiry and discussion on broader national security issues, the committee was granted special approval from the presiding officers of both houses to undertake a delegation to the United Kingdom, France and the United States. I and two other members, the member for Berowra and Senator Fawcett, undertook the delegation. The committee's Deputy Chair, the member for Holt, was to accompany us but regrettably was unable to attend. The committee approved Senator Fawcett to attend in his place.
Across the three nations, the committee met with a range of government departments, intelligence agencies and experts. Just to give you a sense of this, in the UK we met with Scotland Yard, the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office and the National Security Secretariat. In France we met with the Anti-Terrorist Coordination Unit, the Directorate-General for Internal Security, the oversight committee, the Ministry of Justice and the National Intelligence Coordinator. In France the delegation met for the first time with the French intelligence agencies. We were the first parliamentary delegation ever to be invited into the French intelligence agencies, and they made particular note of that.
In Washington we met with the CIA, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, I can inform the House that it was the first time a parliamentary delegation had ever met with both the Senate and House intelligence committees. When we met with the House Intelligence Committee, over 12 members of that committee turned up for the discussion. The final leg was in San Francisco, where we met with Twitter, Google and Facebook, plus three cybersecurity experts at Stanford University.
The delegation had the opportunity to discuss how citizenship revocation for dual nationals engaged in terrorism related activities has been used in other nations. The committee discussed the effectiveness of these measures in combating risk, the practical and operational requirements, and the critical review and oversight mechanisms needed. All those we spoke to in each nation agreed that a range of tools and approaches are needed to combat terrorism on different fronts and that citizenship revocation is a much needed and effective mechanism, in particular, to address the threat of returning fighters.
Combating the radicalisation of individuals, particularly through social media, was an important topic of conversation. Social media means that the radicalisation of youth can happen on our doorstep. Daesh, or ISIS, is sending out almost 100,000 pieces of extremist propaganda a day glorifying terrorist violence. The UK, France and the US are well advanced in working with communities to counter the online propaganda of Daesh, expose their recruitment strategies and assist youth at risk who are targeted through social media. This is an area where there is scope for Australia to increase its response.
Another issue discussed during the delegation was the protection of classified intelligence information in warrants, affidavits and other court proceedings. I think those who want to speak in a minute will be able to do so in quiet, and I would appreciate—
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes. Those on my right should cease the chatter while the member for Wannon is completing his remarks.
The UK has an advanced system of special advocates who represent the interests of clients but also have access to certain classified information which may not be able to be presented in other circumstances. This system, importantly, balances security needs with ensuring fair representation during judicial proceedings. Speaking with UK agencies, the Independent Reviewerof Terrorism Legislation and a special advocateprovided an invaluable insight into the benefits of thisapproach.
Meeting with internatio nally renowned think tanks, the delegation explored the drivers behind the growth of Da esh. Understanding the so cial and economic issues of the region and the humanitarian refugee crisis occurring, provides a better understanding o f the modus operandi of Daesh, the dangers it presents and the efforts required to counter the monstrosities being committed. Being able to engag e internationally with decision makers, policy makers and operational response areas on all these topics was instrumental, and the c ommittee will be immensely assisted in its future examination of national security measures because of those high- level international discussions.
There are protected cables which followed our visit. They will be provided to members of the intelligence and security committee, as will a report by the delegation. I thank the parliament for the opportunity to undertake this delegation and for its support in assisting the committee to bring that international context to its important scrutiny work.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The introduction of this b ill into the House today is significant and somewhat unique in that it has the rare disti nction of enjoying very strong cross- party support.
While I have the honour of addressing you all, I do so on behalf of all my co-sponsors without whose support it would not ha ve been possible to bring this bill to the p arliament. I would like to make special mention of them all: the member for Griffith, Terri Butler, who is seconding this bill; my very dear friend and colleague the member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro; the member for Werriwa, Laurie Ferguson; the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt; the member for Indi, Cathy McGowan; and the member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie. Thank you all for your encouragement, your counsel and your patience in supporting this bill.
I also want to thank Rodney Croome, who has been with me on this journey from a point when I had much less understanding of this issue. I would also like to acknowledge Ivan Hinton-Teoh; John Lamont from Teresa Gambaro's office for his comprehensive work in drafting the bill; the highly professional staff in the Table Office and the Clerk's office, in particular Mr Andrew Freeman, legislative drafter in the Clerk's office; and Heather Beck from my office for her great assistance.
I will not linger too long on the technical aspects of the bill, which have been detailed extensively in the explanatory memorandum and statement of compatibility, but I do want to make these points. This bill does not create different classes of marriage. It does not establish a hierarchy or ranking system, pitting a marriage between a same-sex couple above that of a heterosexual couple or vice versa. It provides absolute protection of religious freedoms not just in observance of section 116 of the Constitution but because you cannot replace one form of prejudice and discrimination with another.
The main purpose of this bill is not a complex one—it is to give same-sex couples in Australia the same right to marry the person they love as that which is currently only granted by law to heterosexual couples. This bill is designed to promote an inclusive Australia, not a divided one. A divided nation is what we will be if we continue to allow discrimination in relation to marriage on the basis of a person's sexuality. The co-sponsors of this bill acknowledge and accept that there are strong and conflicting views on marriage equality, and we certainly respect those views. In addition, we are not in any way trying to change those views. However, we do what we believe is right, and therefore our actions aim to recognise the claim of all peoples to equality before the law. The bill gives expression to this by changing the law so as to allow any 'two people' to marry and have their marriage recognised, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
Colleagues, much of the evolution of our social norms comes about through greater understanding. Many aspects of tradition that were seen as 'usual practice' 50 or 100 years ago are clearly today unthinkable. As a progressive society, we need to continue to make appropriate changes to our legislation over time. We live in a modern society where women and Indigenous people have equal rights to vote, mixed-race marriages are acceptable and being gay is something not to be ashamed of. We believe that when it comes to marriage equality, that time is now.
The institution of marriage is about two people making a commitment to a monogamous relationship for life. Who is to say that one person's love for another person is in some way lesser because of their gender makeup? Over the years, I have made many friends in the gay community—people such as a Sydney couple, John and Arthur, aged 83 and 87 respectively, who have been together for more than 48 years. They are now in their sunset years and would dearly like to formalise their relationship through the institute of marriage, before it is too late. After an almost 50-year commitment, their relationship is still regarded as second-rate under Australian law. This is not good enough.
I would like to highlight other personal circumstances which have also helped to define my position in supporting marriage equity and the removal of all elements of discrimination. It is these circumstances which continue to convince me that progressing this issue is the right thing to do. As a young man in rural Queensland, it was quite enlightening as I came to realise that a person's sexuality certainly has nothing to do with lifestyle choices. I had an experience where a friend of mine transitioned from male to female. Her courage in taking this step in the 1970s left a lasting impression on me, while highlighting the futility of the 'nature versus nurture' argument. As she herself said to me: 'There was certainly never a 'straighter' family or community than the one I was born into. For the sake of those families that differ in composition to the Prime Minister's ideal, I hope you are successful in your campaign.'
More recently, I had the privilege of meeting a young man called Lachlan Beaton. Lachlan had posted a You Tube video about the mental anguish and struggles he faced in hiding his sexuality, and it hit me to the core. Despite knowing from a young age that he was gay, Lachlan did not come out until he was 27 years old, and his twin brother, Charles, was not aware of his sexual orientation. How can one argue that being gay is a lifestyle choice when identical twins develop together in their mother's womb and are raised in the same household by the same parents, yet one is gay and one is not? As for Lachlan and Charles's parents, I am sure that they would hope their sons each find true love and settle down one day. But when they do, why should one son's commitment to his life partner be seen to be of less value than the other's when one can marry the love of his life while the other cannot?
The other question to consider when discussing the family unit is how to even define a 'traditional' family these days. At the last census in 2011, there were more than 6,300 children living in same-sex parented families across Australia. This number will certainly be significantly greater now, and the rights of these children also need to be considered. The fact is that many of the children in same sex families are the biological children of one of the parents. The best environment for those children growing up is within a loving family unit, and those children are deserving of equal protections within that unit. To me, this bill provides another step in affording that protection.
Further opposition to marriage equality has been based on people's religious beliefs. I have, however, received many examples where people have reconciled their faith and their compassion for members of the LGBTI community. I was incredibly touched by the mother who wrote to me earlier this year to say:
I am a mum of four young adults, one of whom is gay and I've known that he was since he was 3 years old, it was that clear.
I prayed for all of his life for God to change him and he didn't, instead I changed and am so thankful for all that my son has taught me about love and tolerance.
I also received strong support from a retired Anglican bishop who is very aware of the pressures that face young people in the Christian community. He said:
I've been a bishop for 30 years, a priest for 60, and of my four sons, two are gay.
I've been very much aware of the attitude as it's been over the past 60 years towards homosexuals. Being in the church, I've seen such a lot of nonsense put forward in the name of Christianity.
I would like to congratulate the 106 clergy, led by Archdeacon Fr Peter MacLeod-Miller, Rev. Angus McLeay and Rev. Dr Margaret Mayman, who presented the co-sponsors of this bill with a letter of support for marriage equality last week.
As I said earlier, marriage equality does bring out very strong emotions right across the spectrum of viewpoints in our society. While people are certainly entitled to have a view, and this bill is certainly not in any way trying to influence individuals' views on this, it is very critical as the issue progresses in the coming months and years that we aim for a very high standard of dialogue, and I think we need to deal with this issue with the respect, the patience and the dignity that it deserves. It is certainly an issue that, irrespective of what people think in relation to priority, is very, very important to many people in our society, both within the gay community and amongst their families and friends and those who support the rights of those individuals. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the MV YWAM PNG was commissioned by Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, the Hon. Peter O'Neill MP, on 21 April 2015;
(2) notes that the ship has been tasked with providing health care and medical training to remote coastal villages in Western Province and Gulf Province, Papua New Guinea;
(3) understands that the new ship will allow Youth with a Mission Medical Ships Australia (YWAM MSA) to reach more villages and to deliver more timely treatment in a more appropriate clinical setting;
(4) recognises the tireless efforts of YWAM MSA to raise awareness of the need for funds to support the work of the ship and its crew of volunteers; and
(5) notes that the Australian Government has contributed funding of $2 million over four years towards this worthy project.
Papua New Guinea is Australia's nearest neighbour. It is a young and developing nation and, like many developing nations, its 7.3 million residents suffer from a critical lack of public infrastructure. Papua New Guinea's challenges are compounded by its difficult geography. Thick jungle, wide rivers and rugged mountains make roads expensive to build and maintain. Consequently, even many large regional towns do not have road access to the capital, Port Moresby. This makes the delivery of other public services even more challenging. In particular, the provision of health care to the estimated 80 to 85 per cent of residents who live in traditional rural communities is patchy and at times non-existent. As a result, health outcomes in Papua New Guinea are poor by regional standards. Life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality is higher than in most neighbouring Pacific countries. The prevalence of deadly preventable diseases such HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria remains a concern.
At government level, the Australian government provides around $500 million per annum in official development assistance to PNG, making Papua New Guinea the largest recipient of Australian foreign aid. But government aid only tells part of the story. There are also committed Australian NGOs and volunteers who are determined to make a positive difference to the health of Papua New Guineans who live in rural and remote areas. One of the most successful of these groups is Youth With a Mission Medical Ships Australia—also known by their acronym, YWAM MSA. YWAM MSA are a great example of what can happen when a group of dedicated and determined people join forces to work for the common good.
Since their founding in 2010, YWAM MSA have been providing primary health services from their base in Townsville to remote, isolated coastal communities in Papua New Guinea's Western Province. In the absence of any road or air links, they do this in unique fashion, via their custom-modified medical ship. Recently, YWAM MSA were able to fundraise for the purchase of a new, larger ship to replace their previous vessel, which was 35 years old. The new ship, the MV YWAM PNG, was launched in April this year and commissioned by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, the Hon. Peter O'Neill. It is a catamaran vessel that was converted from a cruise ship for the purposes of providing a fully self-sufficient floating medical facility. The ship can accommodate up to 100 volunteers—twice the capacity of the previous ship—and will eventually accommodate a dentistry clinic, operating theatre, laboratory and infrastructure to carry up to four small boats that can be launched to reach extremely remote communities.
This ship plays a vital role in the delivery of health services to communities in the Western Province. Without YWAM MSA, many of these communities would lack any form of medical coverage at all. YWAM MSA ships are crewed entirely by volunteers. Medical and other professionals give freely and generously of their time to work onboard the vessel. Services are provided with the support of the PNG National Department of Health, which signed a memorandum of understanding with YWAM MSA in 2011. In addition to providing medical treatment, YWAM MSA volunteers do important work in the communities they serve by providing education on basic health and first aid so that locals have the skills and knowledge to deal with medical emergencies.
In just a few short years of operation, YWAM MSA have managed to raise substantial funding from an impressive array of corporate and NGO partners. To assist with fundraising efforts, the coalition government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister Julie Bishop, has committed $2 million over four years towards YWAM MSA operations in the Gulf and Western provinces. The foreign minister travelled to Townsville in early April to make the announcement alongside the member for Herbert.
YWAM MSA is a great example of what can be achieved with goodwill, hard work, persistence and a great cause to rally around. The House congratulates all YWAM MSA volunteers for their ongoing efforts to improve the lives of people living in remote communities in Papua New Guinea. I acknowledge the work of the member for Leichhardt and his wife in their support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I congratulate the member for Leichhardt on introducing the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. He will certainly be on the right side of history. I also want to acknowledge his support for the people of Papua New Guinea over many, many years.
Papua New Guinea has some of the lowest living standards and worst health outcomes in our region. The World Health Organization estimates that life expectancy for the people of Papua New Guinea is 62 years for men and 65 years for women. In 2005, 14,000 of the total of 15,000 child deaths that occurred in the Pacific region were in Papua New Guinea. Given these figures, it is no surprise that Papua New Guinea's health status is one of the worst of any nation throughout our region or the world.
For a population of more than seven million people, Papua New Guinea has fewer than 400 doctors, and only 51 of them work outside the capital, Port Moresby. It is a country that is really ruled by its geography and, as such, isolation continues to be a real barrier to proper treatment. This is something that the former Rudd and Gillard governments understood. We targeted our health and overseas development aid budget for Papua New Guinea to deal with some of these issues.
In July 2013 I was fortunate, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, to go to Papua New Guinea, to Daru in the Western Province—one of the most remote regions—to open the tuberculosis clinic that was funded by the Australian government. That was a $33 million investment in a 22-bed TB isolation ward and ablutions clinic. It is housed at the Daru General Hospital.
As part of that $33 million commitment we also funded a sea ambulance. The role of the ambulance was to travel up and down the Fly River to some of the most remote villages of Papua New Guinea and bring people who were suspected of tuberculosis contagion back to the clinic which the Labor government had funded at the hospital. By all accounts, that service is still running and still doing an excellent job in fighting what is a very big problem within Papua New Guinea, particularly in the western region—tuberculosis.
This was a partnership. It was a joint effort by the Australian government, the Papua New Guinean government and also the Ok Tedi Fly River Development Program. It is pleasing to see that that program has got results. In the first year—in one year alone—it reduced the mortality rate from drug-resistant tuberculosis from 25 per cent to just five per cent. The program has the support of the United Nations and other NGOs that have been working in that region fighting tuberculosis for many years. This was a great example of a Labor government understanding the challenge of remoteness, of the inaccessibility of proper health care for many people in the regions of Papua New Guinea, and working with the Papua New Guinean government and other organisations to combat it. The results speak for themselves.
In that light, it is pleasing to see that the Abbott government is supporting similar initiatives. The YWAM initiative is in that vein, providing medical services through sea ambulances and other vessels to remote regions of Papua New Guinea, albeit at a reduced rate of support. Unfortunately, the Abbott government has moved some of the focus of our overseas development aid away from poverty reduction and sustainable development. That is a key outcome that has been taken out of Australia's overseas development aid program. Unfortunately, I think you are not going to see the level of support that is necessary, particularly in the Pacific, for programs such as this, which reduce preventable diseases in remote regions throughout the Pacific. The $11.3 billion cut the Abbott government made when it comes to overseas development aid will have an effect, unfortunately, on programs such as the one I mentioned a moment ago.
I have been speaking quite closely with a number of NGOs and overseas development aid organisations who are uncertain about whether or not many of the programs that they run in places like Papua New Guinea will continue into the future. I congratulate Mrs Prentice for moving this motion. If there is one thing that comes out of this it is that the Abbott government needs to explain to the NGOs and organisations that do this great throughout the Pacific whether or not their funding will be continuing and whether or not they can continue to run these programs.
I also would like to commend the member for Ryan for putting this forward as a motion. With regard to the previous speaker, I am a little bit disappointed at the criticism that he is targeting at our government in relation to the support that we offer for Papua New Guinea. I was in the Western Province only the week before last where I was involved in opening a ranger program that was funded by this government. It would never have happened if it had not been for this government providing that funding. It is making the first steps ever to provide service through the aid programs in those remote treaty villages—something that has never existed in the past. Money was spent but it was certainly not reaching the areas where it was targeted.
With regard to YWAM, a lot has been said about the history of this wonderful organisation, so I am not going to go back into that history. What I would say is that, when you start looking at the statistics, delivering basic services into Papua New Guinea poses very serious challenges, with 80 per cent of the population living in very remote areas without connectivity by road et cetera. It is a nation where 43 per cent of the population is under the age of 15. There is a good reason for that: one in four Papua New Guinean children will not survive to celebrate their 40th birthday. This is where YWAM comes in and does a fabulous job.
I am just going to give you some statistics from the 2014 annual report from YWAM. This is the sort of outcome that has been done with a very small amount of investment. There was a couple of million dollars invested recently, and I appreciate the $2 million investment that went into the organisation's work through the foreign affairs minister. In 2014, YWAM Medical Ships, this one small group who are all volunteers, saw 9,109 primary healthcare patients in 2014. There were 9,833 immunisations given. There were 2,960 dentistry procedures. There were 2,810 optometry clinic patients. There were 109 ophthalmology procedures. There were over 36,167 professional attendees at health promotion sessions and there were also 19,822 preventive health resources distributed.
It is all very well to give out tablets and pills and the likes of that, but more importantly you have got to deal with the core problems. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the poverty and the way in which these people live and the need for clean water, sanitation et cetera. So in 2014 they also held water safe training. There were 240 communities that were trained through the YWAM procedures. There was basic electricity and generator training for 33 communities. On the coastal communities they use only outboard motors et cetera. There were another 42 training sessions for that, and there were 44 sessions in the communities for safe water projects. These are very important. They are the things that help these communities start to manage for themselves.
The member for Ryan mentioned my wonderful wife, Yolonde. In February last year Yolonde was appointed the Cairns community ambassador for YWAM Medical Ships Australia, and she is the first community ambassador that has ever been appointed. Her role is to raise community awareness, recruit volunteers and help strengthen sister city relationships. The new ship, MV YWAM PNG, left Cairns in April 2015 on its maiden voyage, and my wife, Yolonde, joined the ship in Port Moresby for her first volunteer tour. There were 80 other volunteers on board, including the crew, and they did 4.5 clinical days. A lot of that work was done in the Central Province area. Just in that short time they visited 10 villages in two provinces where they saw 706 primary healthcare patients. They gave 494 immunisations, gave 81 health promotion sessions, saw 58 dental patients and saw 447 optometry patients. The sad part about it was that there was a young girl there with HIV and tuberculosis who she saw on her first day. She looked to be about five or six years old and in a dreadful condition, but they were able to give her some treatment. This is the fabulous work that this wonderful organisation does, and I cannot commend it enough. I certainly encourage ongoing support from both sides of the parliament.
Debate adjourned
I move:
That this House notes that:
(1) Australian Hearing Awareness Week runs from 23 to 29 August 2015;
(2) Australia has world class hearing services including those which have been delivered through Australian Hearing since it was established to assist returning Diggers in 1947;
(3) hearing loss currently affects one in six Australians and is predicted to affect one in four Australians by 2050; and
(4) events will be held all around the country to raise awareness of hearing issues including the Australian Hearing Hub Open House which will be held at Macquarie University on 22 August 2015 in the lead up to the Australian Hearing Awareness Week.
Australian Hearing Awareness Week is a very important week that runs from 23 August to 29 August 2015—next week. It is very important for people to focus on their hearing and, in particular, on testing it. We have to thank the organisers, the Office of Hearing Services and the Deafness Forum of Australia. There are events running around Australia. In my own electorate, Australian Hearing have a bus which I have seen around in the electorate from time to time. The last time I saw it will was at the Jack Young Centre for Seniors at Salisbury. It will be stopping by various locations throughout Adelaide. On 27 August, between 9 am and 4 pm, it will be at Bunnings Munno Para, so it will be busy—a lot of people do their shopping there. It will be providing the same service that Australian Hearing has been providing for so many years. In fact, since 1947, this important Australian institution has been serving the public under governments of both persuasions. It even had significant expansions during the Holt and the Howard governments. Australian Hearing is an institution that we should be proud of. We should also be proud of Australia's record on hearing. I am sure that members following from the opposite side will give us an indication of that.
Unfortunately Australia's success in this area is under threat because the government's audit commission recommended the privatisation of Australian Hearing. Australian Hearing is a very important anchor for all of the private services, all of the charity services, all of the research that is done and all of the medical exports. Australian Hearing is the foundation stone of all of that. It is a great pity that the government has left a cloud over this institution—the cloud of privatisation.
Recently there were Senate hearings into this privatisation, and what did we find? We found that the government has not consulted enough. Mrs Porter, who came to give some information to the Senate committee, said:
… we had compiled a really long list of questions that we have constantly sent to the Office of Hearing Services, the Department of Health and the Minister for Finance about all the issues that we are concerned about. From my understanding, those were really not addressed at that consultation.
She also said:
We did a submission when we heard about the scoping study. We decided to do a submission which we sent to the Department of Finance. After we sent that, we did get asked to go to PwC, who gave us a fair bit of their time. We have not seen a scoping study.
What we have seen here is a government that launched a scoping study but did not consult anybody about it—not any of the service providers or anyone in the industry. It basically had a consultation that nobody went to.
We know that consultation is so important because one of the other issues that was brought up at the Senate select committee was the interaction between Australian Hearing, the Office of Hearing Services and the NDIS. Some of the evidence at that Senate committee was that that question has not been resolved and is entirely up in the air.
We have a government that has not consulted and a government that has not thought through the interactions of hearing services. Services are provided by Australian Hearing to a person from birth until the age of 26 and post 65 years. But the government has not thought about the interaction with hearing services that goes on in an individual's life between the ages of age 26 and 65. We know it has not thought that through, because the Senate heard evidence to that effect. We know it has not thought through the privatisation, because in the budget it has kicked the can down the road another few months while it arbitrates within the government about whether to privatise an institution that has been around since 1947 under governments of both persuasions—an institution which does not need to be privatised.
There is no money in it. All that will happen is that services will become contestable. Australian Hearing services 468 locations, including 212 remote locations. In a country this large no collection of providers will be able to provide the service that Australian Hearing, a government backed and government owned institution, does. The government should think about what it is doing and reject privatisation.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise today in support of this motion and I commend the member for Wakefield for moving this motion. I understand it is an area of great interest to him. It is very important for the House to acknowledge that, in Australia, Hearing Awareness Week runs from 23 to 29 August 2015. This is particularly pertinent given that hearing loss currently affects one in six Australians and is predicted to affect one in four Australians by 2050.
This motion also provides an opportunity to acknowledge the role that Australian Hearing plays in our nation's health system and to understand why this organisation should be kept in government hands. It was only about twelve months ago that I spoke in this House about my concerns about the Liberal-National government's proposal to potentially privatise Australian Hearing. At the time, I spoke of the vital service that Australian Hearing has provided to the people not just in my electorate of Richmond but indeed right throughout the nation since its inception in 1947.
In fact, Australian Hearing was established by the Chifley government in 1947. It was started to provide services to returning servicemen and servicewomen and to children who had lost their hearing from rubella outbreaks. It has operated in government hands ever since. It is now the sole hearing service provider for children under the age of 26. It also provides services to former military personnel, age pensioners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders over the age of 50. Australian Hearing provides services at 468 hearing centres and visiting sites throughout Australia, including many rural and regional centres where hearing health services might not otherwise be available. Included in the 468 locations are 212 remote communities. The services include hearing tests, fitting hearing devices and providing counselling and rehabilitation programs.
It is hard to imagine who would service these communities if Australian Hearing were to be privatised. As we have said, we on this side of the House oppose the privatisation of Australian Hearing services and we are concerned about the possible impact that privatising Australian Hearing could have upon the quality of services and the ability to access such services. The peak bodies representing hearing impaired Australians have also expressed their strong opposition to the government's proposal to privatise Australian Hearing. The fact is that Australian Hearing and the National Acoustic Laboratories play a significant and important role in providing world-class hearing services at a low cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians every year.
Australian Hearing has an internationally recognised reputation as a best practice government provider and research organisation. Indeed, that great record of achievement is now under threat because of this government. But the fact is that the government has absolutely no case for privatisation and has ignored the widely expressed concerns about risks to the quality of and access to these services.
This is an important discussion to have, especially with Hearing Awareness Week almost upon us. As we have said, that week runs from 23 to 29 August and aims to highlight the many events being held around the country. The events will focus on the nation's hearing health and the many solutions that are now available to the rapidly growing number of with hearing impairment sufferers. Events will be held around the country to raise awareness of hearing issues, including the Australian Hearing Hub Open House which will be held at Macquarie University on 22 August in the lead-up to the Hearing Awareness Week.
As we all know, and as the member for Wakefield said in introducing this, hearing does matter. It is important that we do more to understand the causes and the scale of the problem that we face today. In fact, one in six Australians have some sort of hearing impairment or disorder and this is predicted to affect one in four Australians by 2050. We know that hearing impairment or deafness afflictions occur via a number of ways through medical conditions or injury. Some people are born with hearing impairments while others may develop them as they get older or, indeed, through injury or exposure to loud noises. It is vitally important that we do raise awareness of those early warning signs and to ensure that people get checked. A decline in one's hearing tends to go unnoticed for some time—it can be a gradual process—and it is important that people are aware of the warning signs and that they get checked as soon as they are aware of any issues.
As I have said, Australian Hearing provide an extensive array of services, particularly to young adults who are under 26 years of age, Indigenous Australians, former military personnel and elderly Australians with complex hearing needs. They provide a range of very important services often to people who simply cannot afford the full commercial services for hearing tests, for fitting hearing devices or for accessing some of the many excellent rehabilitation programs that are available as well. We know that Australian Hearing can provide these services and we know that privatising these services would be devastating for those groups that are in need. As we focus upon the value of Australian Hearing in Australian Hearing Awareness Week, let us keep working to keep this great organisation in government hands so that it can keep doing its vital work.
It is a pleasure and an honour to speak on the motion on Australian Hearing Awareness Week. I need to inform everyone that my attempts to raise this motion in the Federation Chamber were unsuccessful. I was rebuked, and I apologise for being five minutes late.
Hearing is something that we must be mindful of. There have been many famous and prominent Australians who have suffered with hearing loss. Much of it is due to cumulative exposure, as we know. I want to say to the member for Richmond that I think they were relatively ill-informed comments to be highly critical of the role of the private sector in hearing. Like dentistry, the private sector plays a very important role. It only betrays that the member for Richmond has never walked into a private hearing provider when she talked about the quality that they deliver. The quality is exceptional and no independent and fair-minded person would say otherwise.
The member for Richmond did raise a significant point about the community service obligation if one were to ultimately dispose of the assets of Australian Hearing to potentially private sector buyers. The big concern really would be if it were purchased by a major multinational that was basically the provider and vendor of just one hearing aid line of products. That would be a concern. Not all private providers do that and there is a chance to energise the sector by having Australian Hearing in hands other than those of the government.
Let us now focus on 23 August. I know that the notion of Hearing Awareness Week has been used as a Trojan Horse to have a red-hot crack at the private sector, which Labor has tried to do today, but I reassure all of those Australians who quietly walk into a private hearing provider that yes, the quality of care is just the same as at Australian Hearing, which is government owned, and no, the sky will not fall in, the private providers will not rip you off and penalty rates will not be affected if you see a private hearing provider—they will look after you; you are in great hands. Our health system, much as Labor tries to deny it, is built on the back of private provision, and having a blended private-public model is actually what makes it so strong—something that Labor has never understood and has fought against since the mid-1970s.
Hearing can be lost with both relatively acute and seriously severe events. Examples of those are military service and exposure to sustained levels of high-volume music in nightclubs. I mention those two because we need to be aware the risks facing not only veterans, farmers and those who work in industry but also those who have high levels of recreational noise exposure. They are both very important. Awareness is important. The propensity to throw on some ear protection is sometimes seen as being weak and not being able to handle it. Farmers in particular say that they have done it forever and they do not see the problem. We need to have those really clear discussions about the importance of looking after your hearing.
I will go through some examples. Once you start exceeding 110 decibels, which is similar to a gunshot or to a jet taking off, you can only stand around one minute of that kind of exposure before you start seeing damage to the inner ear. At the other end of the equation at about 65 decibels, which is probably a really noisy household appliance, you are unlikely to see too much damage until you have had more than one hour of exposure.
Importantly, once children lose their hearing it is almost impossible to bring it back without great expense. It is important to note that many of the hearing aids that are available to children are removed once they turn 18 because the public access program terminates. The problem there is that people are given at the last gasp before they turn 18 the best possible hearing aids and then basically they are left with that device for however long it lasts. It is clearly iniquitous. I agree we need to look after kids but we also need to find a smoother way of looking after people who have severe needs but happen to be 18 years and one day old.
The incidence of hearing loss of course increases just with age. We know that half the population between 60 and 70 are affected and that rises to 80 per cent once you get to 70. We are already doing everything we can to help veterans, and no-one on either side of the parliamentary fence would question that. Most importantly, I think an excellent message to leave with is that, if there is one group that is not fully aware of their exposure, it is young people, particularly with recreational exposure in nightclubs and loud music concerts. We do need to say to them that it is completely okay to wear hearing protection in those circumstances because that exposure is causing a wide degree of chronic but low-level damage that will ultimately be a large bill for this nation.
I thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this very important motion to the House. I acknowledge that National Hearing Awareness Week is from 23 to 29 August. I say to the previous speaker that this motion is not about our blended public-private health system because the government is seeking to make it purely a private system and get out of providing services through Australian Hearing. Along with my colleagues and the mover of this motion, I am concerned about the impact that the privatisation of Australian Hearing could have on the quality of services and access to services. This is about ensuring that Australians with hearing loss can access services. The current status is that the government has deferred making a decision on the privatisation while it consults on how Australian Hearing will fit into the NDIS. More to the point, in last year's budget, the Treasurer stood up and announced a scoping study into the privatisation of Australian Hearing. He did so without talking to any of the people involved—the peak bodies or consumers. This was a unilateral decision that the Treasurer introduced in last year's budget.
Australian Hearing was established by the Chifley government in 1947. It was started to provide services to returning servicemen and women and children who had lost their hearing from rubella outbreaks, but since that time it has grown and now provides service to many, many young people and particularly children. I would like to share with the House the story of a young mother of twin boys who came to see me, Angela Lamb. Her two boys, Kai and Ryan, were born at 28 weeks, and Ryan had very significant hearing loss. Angela told me how it was all a blur at the start; there were numerous tests that had to be undertaken; luckily the costs of hearing aids, FMs and batteries were all covered for her by Australian Hearing. Angela also had access to early intervention services. Those early intervention services were coordinated through Australian Hearing and have made an enormous impact on Ryan's life. I met with Ryan and he could communicate really effectively with me, all because of the input from Australian Hearing. He has been able to attend a mainstream day-care centre, and he will be attending a mainstream school next year. He has been exposed to so many different things because of the way his hearing loss has been handled by Australian Hearing.
It is not only children who benefit from Australian Hearing. Australian Hearing is vitally important to Angela and to other parents with children who have lost hearing. I have also been contacted by a number of senior Australians who have used the services of Australian Hearing. They speak so highly of it and they rely on it to ensure that they get access to the quality hearing services they need to maintain a good level of hearing.
I would also like to share with the House that Australian Hearing provides 468 hearing centres throughout Australia, including many visiting centres in rural and regional centres where hearing health services might not otherwise be available. Services include hearing tests, fitting hearing devices and providing counselling and rehabilitation programs. Included in the 468 locations are 212 remote communities. It is hard to imagine who will service these communities if Australian Hearing is privatised, because we all know it is hard to get private health services in remote areas. Together with its research division, the National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing helps people with complex hearing health problems to participate fully in life by developing language skills, participating in education and enjoying the family and social activities that lead to a fulfilment of life. Australian Hearing has been a valuable service in our country for years. I support it, Labor supports it, and we want it here to stay.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I am grateful to the member for Wakefield for again raising the important issues around hearing and hearing loss in this place and for giving me the opportunity to highlight the Abbott government's proud track record in this area, together with the local connection to my electorate of Bennelong. Hearing loss affects one in six Australians and is expected to rise to one in four by 2050, as a result of Australia's ageing population. The Abbott government is committed to reducing the avoidable incidents and consequences of hearing loss in our community and will continue to provide eligible Australians with access to high-quality hearing services.
The Hearing Services Program provides access to quality hearing services under the voucher program and community service obligation component. In 2014-15 around 270 hearing providers, including Australian Hearing, delivered services nationally to almost 670,000 voucher clients with an average age of 80 years and at a cost of around $384 million. During this period Australian Hearing was provided with $62.693 million in funding for community service obligation services. Australian Hearing delivered services to 58,034 CSO clients, including 33,150 children and young adults. The federal government also provides the National Acoustic Laboratories, the research arm of Australian Hearing, with approximately $4 million annually to support research into hearing health, rehabilitation and prevention. Over the past year the government has consulted with key hearing stakeholders on the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and how it will affect the delivery of hearing services in Australia. A report back to government on the outcome of the stakeholders sessions is being prepared.
In the 2013-14 budget the former Labor government decided that funding for services delivered under a range of Commonwealth health programs, including the community service obligation program, were to transition to the NDIS. This will change how services are provided, irrespective of Australian Hearing's future ownership. The Hearing Services Program is only one of 16 programs transitioning in whole or in part to the NDIS. As a result, the scoping study into the privatisation of Australian Hearing has been deferred in order to allow the stakeholders consultation process to be undertaken. The consideration of future ownership options for Australian Hearing will not impact on the eligibility for, or the funding of, the community service obligation, whose services will continue to be available to those eligible. Consulting further with the deaf community will help the Australian government manage the transition of certain clients of the Hearing Services Program to the NDIS as well as inform the government's consideration of the scoping study into Australian Hearing.
The electorate of Bennelong has often been described as the innovation capital of Australia. In the hearing space alone we are most fortunate to boast Cochlear, the Australian Hearing Hub, National Acoustics Laboratories and, of course, the amazing research experts from Macquarie University. Next week we will be celebrating Australian Hearing Awareness Week with a range of activities in Bennelong. On Saturday 22 August the Australian Hearing Hub will have an open house—a free family-friendly event that will include hearing tests, research activities, demonstrations and a tour of the amazing anechoic chamber. I encourage all my colleagues to come to Bennelong and make the most of these great opportunities, but if you are not lucky enough to be able to visit you can also participate in the Big Aussie Hearing Check 2015. Australian Hearing is rallying the country to come together in one special day in the name of hearing loss prevention. Volunteers will be popping up at famous landmarks, community halls, RSLs, pharmacies and health centres around the country to offer free hearing checks throughout the week. Australian Hearing will also be attempting to set a Guinness world record for the most number of checks performed in a day.
Research shows most Australians are reluctant to get their hearing checked. Like with most health concerns, prevention is always better than cure. Hearing is a vital sense, with loss having the potential of a myriad of repercussions, and I encourage all Bennelong residents to celebrate Australian Hearing Awareness Week and get their hearing checked.
I start by thanking the member for Wakefield and shadow parliamentary secretary for health for bringing this matter of hearing awareness before the House. Members will not know that he is a fierce champion for the users of Australian Hearing Services inside our caucus—they may be familiar with his advocacy work within the community, but he has a fierce voice and he is ever active on the matter. If good government were to start today, the first speaker from the government side on this motion would have been the Minister for Health. The minister for health would have taken the very short walk from her office to the dispatch box and she would have assured the House that the government no longer intends to proceed with the privatisation of Australian Hearing Services. That would be a welcome decision by this government; it would be a decision welcomed by all members on this side of the House. Members on this side of the House feel very protective of Australian Hearing Services. Of course it is an institution that belongs to all Australians, but we feel protective of it because it was a Labor Prime Minister in Ben Chifley who established Australian Hearing Services in 1947. It was, as the member for Shortland has told the House, started to provide hearing services to returning soldiers who had lost their hearing during battle in wars throughout the Pacific and in the European theatre and also to children who had lost their hearing from rubella outbreaks. It has done a very good job in government hands ever since.
Australian Hearing provides over 468 hearing centres right throughout Australia, including in many rural and regional centres where hearing health services might not otherwise be available. I hope there are going to be some speakers, apart from me, who will stand up for rural and regional constituents, because these are the areas that, more than any, rely on services that would not otherwise be available to them. In my own electorate of Throsby Australian Hearing has outlets in Warrawong, Dapto, Shellharbour and Albion Park. Many low income families in those areas simply would not have those services available to them were it not for these outlets. I take the opportunity to commend the work of the staff at Australian Hearing Services in those outlets and indeed right throughout the Illawarra and Southern Highlands.
Together with its research division the National Acoustics Laboratories, Australian Hearing helps people with often complex hearing health problems to participate fully in daily life. This is achieved through helping them to develop language skills, participate in education and enjoy the family and social activities that lead to a fulfilling life—things that we all take for granted but things that they would not be able to participate in without the services that Australian Hearing provides. Of Australian Hearing's 468 locations, over 210 are located in remote and rural communities throughout the country. It is hard to imagine who will service these communities if Australian Hearing is privatised. I know that I speak for many hundreds of families throughout rural and regional Australia when I echo their concern and stand in parliament today to champion their needs. I also point out the plight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, around 70 per cent of whom live outside capital cities. They experience the highest levels of ear disease and associated hearing loss in the world. Rates of hearing problems in these communities are often 10 times more than rates for non-Indigenous Australians, and it is inconceivable how they will have those services provided if the government gets its way and proceeds with its plan to privatise Australian Hearing Services. Over 50 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the Northern Territory have some form of hearing loss, with about 10 per cent of those having moderate to severe hearing loss.
If you want to look for a cause for people not being able to fully participate in education or if you want to look for a cause for people not being able to fully participate in the workforce, you need look no further than their incapacity to hear properly. How can we blame a child who does not attend school because they cannot hear what the teacher is saying because they do not have hearing services available to them? As a wealthy country, as a smart country, we can do a lot better than this. We must protect Australian Hearing. I commend all those on the Labor side and all those who support the same position on the other side of the House for championing the cause of Australian Hearing, which must remain in government hands.
I take this opportunity to again put forward my support for Hearing Awareness Week, between 25 and 31 August, and I congratulate the Deafness Forum of Australia for its initiative in promoting Hearing Awareness Week. The key objective of this week is to highlight hearing impairment and hearing loss, and provide greater recognition of this issue. It is not an uncommon problem, unfortunately. Hearing loss affects one in six of us Australians, and many of these problems can be prevented. There are issues around prevention and identification, but there are well-established services providing help and cure.
First of all, congenital deafness—through rubella and other uterine infections—which everyone is familiar with, can only being identified by widespread screening of children at very early ages. To get that intervention early, with cochlear implants, is vital. We have many institutions that are doing a fantastic job, and I would like to congratulate them, particularly bodies like The Shepherd Centre that run very effective intervention and training programs, and all the clinicians who are involved in cochlear implants—not to mention the Australian technology at the forefront of that invention which has liberated many people trapped inside sign language and other avenues of communication.
Another cause of hearing impairment is glue ear, a condition where the inner ear fills up with muck as a result of acute inflammation. This is also remediable, by putting little drains in the ear. In my electorate of Lyne, there are a lot of children, and, as the previous speaker, the member for Throsby, outlined, many people are not identified as having this problem. We have Australian Hearing services in Port Macquarie and in Taree that are doing a really great job trying to identify and offer relief to a lot of these people. But it is in the paediatric space that there are the best outcomes; therefore, regular, broad screening for hearing impairment in our young Australians is vital if we are going to make a big impact, as well as getting those with congenital and major hearing loss access to cochlear implants.
There are other forms of deafness we should be aware of, such as industrial deafness. Fortunately, most businesses and companies are now aware of prevention being better than cure. Earmuffs of all varieties are freely available, and it is a rare workplace now that does not have actions in place to mitigate that.
With regard to hearing services, the Commonwealth does provide a wide network of Australian Hearing offices, and I would like to highlight that they do a fantastic job. There are also private providers in this space, and I bring to the attention of the parliament the fact that some of this activity is, in my opinion, very opportunistic. They seem to be marketing the technology rather than addressing the problem. It is only with concerned, honest brokers that we are going to get universal attention and unbiased, not-commercially-driven analysis of who needs hearing intervention. It should be based on clinical judgement, clinical measurement and appropriate intervention, not on getting the most sales of hearing aids that people may or may not need. So we have to be careful whenever there is a push to intervene in certain areas, and make sure that the right decisions are being made.
We need to analyse this problem very clearly before we blow up a good service. It is with great pride that I have been able to have my say.
It is always good to have a doctor in the house!
I acknowledge the member for Wakefield's contribution in bringing this motion before the House. I listen with interest when the good doctor, the member for Lyne, brings commentary to the House; it must always be taken in its entirety. He is a man who is of the utmost integrity.
I rise to speak on this motion because there is an image captured in my head. It was on an episode of 60 Minutes about what our wonderful doctors and nurses are doing in hearing advancement. I saw a small child, born deaf, having a hearing implant switched on for the first time and hearing its parents laughing, a parent calling its name. Previously, that world would have been blank, totally silent, but it now had voices, and noises like people's feet shuffling and, outside, birds singing, leaves rustling. All that would normally have been blank for a deaf child. Having that implant switched on for the first time is momentous not only for the child but also for the parents: imagine the life-changing environment it provides for a parent.
I was fortunate enough, when growing up, to have a great little mate—to this day I still refer to him as a brother—who was not completely deaf but, by crikey, he was on the way, and as a result we all learnt sign language. My sign language is not that good, but I can do the alphabet and I have enough pace about me to swear a couple of words back at him! But they are skills you never forget. I was probably 13 when I stopped signing, but I could still do it. When I am at a function or somewhere and there are people who are signing, although they are very quick I can pick up the gist of what they are saying.
I think it is important that we acknowledge that it is hearing week. It does normally fly under the radar. I acknowledge that Hearing Awareness Week runs from 23 to 29 August. There will be promotional stuff all around the country during the month of August. Australians have world-class hearing services, including those which have been delivered through Australian Hearing since it was established back in 1947. You can image the diggers returning from both world wars with their hearing gone after the bomb blasts. That is a side effect of the terrible wars. The last thing they probably heard was an all-deafening, mighty explosion.
Hearing loss currently affects one in six Australians and is predicted to affect one in four Australians by 2015. Why would it affect one in six? If I just did a straw poll of my colleagues here in this House, that number would appear to be accurate. There are advancements in technology happening in this space at the moment. Years ago hearing aids were clumsy, large, obstructive and visually ugly. Now there are members of this House who quite adequately hear and communicate and operate effectively with each other as a result of the advancements in hearing aids. In this chamber as we speak there are people utilising hearing aids—and if they are not, they should be.
I say to members and my mum who currently use a hearing aid: keep using it, stay involved in your community and stay active. We should praise and bless those magnificent people who have contributed such life-changing devices to the Australian public. I praise those people involved in the sector.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges and supports the deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel currently serving overseas;
(2) recognises that:
(a) there are currently well over 2,000 ADF personnel serving overseas; and
(b) these men and women are playing a critical role in supporting Australia's national interests by contributing to international security operations; and
(3) notes the Government's ongoing support for our deployed ADF personnel and the $910.7 million provided in the 2015 budget to support major overseas operations including Okra, Highroad, Manitou, Accordion and Resolute.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
My electorate of Solomon was Australia's front line in World War II, and even to this day Solomon has five military bases and nearly 5,000 uniformed personnel from all three armed forces. As I stand here today there are nearly 2,000 personnel from the Australian Defence Force protecting Australia's security and national interests around the globe. I put the motion to the House today to acknowledge their outstanding service and their contribution to our country.
Australian sailors, soldiers and airmen are deployed across the Middle East degrading and disrupting the so-called Islamic State in Iraq as part of Operation Okra, defending the region's shipping lanes as part of Operation Manitou, training, advising and assisting the Afghan defence forces as part of Operation Highroad, and providing support to the Middle East operations in Operation Accordion. Closer to home, Australian forces are deployed to our north as part of Operation Resolute, protecting Australia's maritime borders and keeping peace on the high seas.
Decisions are made in this building that result in the men and women of our Australian Defence Force leaving family, friends and safety in Australia to go overseas to do what needs to be done to defend Australia and our national interests. In debating this motion today we remind ourselves of every one of the 2,000 men and women who are deployed overseas. There are thousands of people left behind who will miss them. There are children who will go months without seeing one of their parents, and partners who will shoulder the responsibility of looking after kids and managing households without their significant other. There are parents who will never stop worrying about their grown sons and daughters. There are friends and colleagues who will go without the company of their mates.
Of course, there are the risks that the men and women who are deployed take so that we do not have to take them. They face threats abroad so that we do not have to face them here. As we sit in the chamber and debate this motion the crew of HMAS Newcastle will be going about their duties on Operation Manitou. This US-led combined maritime forces operation disrupts terrorism, disrupts the international drug trade, prevents piracy and encourages regional cooperation. HMAS Newcastle will soon be replaced by HMAS Melbourne and that will mark the 61st rotation of a Royal Australian Navy warship to the Middle East region since 1990.
Over Iraq the pilots and crew of the FA18 Hornets, the E7 Wedgetails and the KC30 air-to-air refuelling aircraft will be flying endless patrols, scanning the landscapes below for the thugs and criminals of the so-called Islamic State. In Kabul, in Afghanistan, it will be 34 degrees today, yet the soldiers of Operation Highroad will be donning body armour and battle fatigues and going to work training the Afghan Army. Personnel of Operation Accordion will be working in various locations around the Middle East making sure that everything and everyone is in the right place at the right time. The crews of Operation Resolute will be patrolling the tropical waters to our nation's north, working alongside Border Force to shut down the evil and reckless people-smuggling trade, which has cost many lives. Each of these men and women is sacrificing something—safety, comfort, time at home, time with their family—so that we do not have to. We as a government and as people owe a huge debt to each of these men and women of the Defence Force. I ask my colleagues as representatives of the government and the people of Australia to join with me in thanking these and men and women of the Australian Defence Force for their outstanding service and also their families who are making an enormous sacrifice for our country.
I thank the member for Solomon for this motion today, and I also rise to pay tribute to Australian Defence Force personnel and the critical role they play in supporting and advancing Australia's national interests. I do not think there is a person in this place who would not agree that, when it comes to defence capability, our single, biggest asset is our people—the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. It is their courage, their dedication, their bravery and their commitment that make our Defence Force what it is—a world-class defence force. This is especially the case for those currently serving overseas, and of course their families back home in Australia.
As we have heard, there are currently more than 2,100 ADF personnel serving overseas. That number includes more than 900 personnel deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Okra, more than 600 personnel in the Middle East region as part of operation Accordion and Manitou and more than 400 personnel in Afghanistan as part of Operation Highroad. I have seen firsthand the contribution these personnel make in securing our nation and its interests. I have seen firsthand the fundamental role they play in delivering aid and humanitarian assistance, following earthquakes or tsunamis, as we saw in South-East Asia. I have also seen firsthand the work they do for the communities that they live in overseas.
In 2011, I had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan as part of the Defence subcommittee. We were in Kabul, Tarin Kot and Kandahar. One of the experiences that had a really profound effect on me was going to Mirabad Valley, which had just recently been pacified by our ADF. We had gathered around the community members—all men; I was the only woman there—to talk with them, to get an understanding of what the situation was and what a difference stability meant for their daily lives. There was this young Australian ADF member there who would have been in his twenties. He had built up a very strong relationship with that community. In a way, he was like a rock star for that community. They looked up to him, even though he was very young. He was probably 40 or 50 years younger than some of the men gathered in this group, yet he obviously had such respect from that community because he had built up a strong relationship with them and had helped stabilise their community. It was incredibly profound. I imagine that that young man is back here now, immersed in some base somewhere, yet he was, as I said, like a rock star to that community. They literally looked up at him. It was quite extraordinary. As I said, I have seen the work that the ADF does in terms of benefiting and advancing the nation-building elements of these communities overseas. When the ADF members do that, they become a member of their new community, as in the case of this young man in Mirabad Valley, in Afghanistan, because they are so far away from their families here in Australia.
Like the member for Solomon, I acknowledge and thank all ADF personnel. I also want to use my contribution to say a special thank you to the families, because it is difficult to imagine just how tough it would be for the families of ADF personnel who are serving overseas. Last week, I had the honour of attending the annual dinner of the Defence Families of Australia national conference, where I met with some extraordinary men and women—there were a few men there but it was mainly women—who are strong, committed, resilient, articulate, highly intelligent and advancing the cause of the broader ADF community. They are incredibly powerful women. Congratulations to Robyn Ritchie and to all the members of DFA who contribute in such a significant way. As we know, they have to pick up and start new lives in different cities every two or three years, with the posting cycle. They have got to do the parenting alone when their spouse is deployed overseas. They are separated for long periods from their loved one, and often their loved one is in a dangerous position. They are extraordinary supports for the ADF personnel, and they do an extraordinary job in contributing to our nation's capability.
Finally, to Australia's defence personnel both at home and abroad, I say thank you to their families. You have the strong support of this parliament. You have the strong support of the Australian people. We are proud of you, and we appreciate the very great sacrifice you have made and are making.
I thank my colleague the member for Solomon for bringing this motion to the parliament. The member is a strong voice in the Australian parliament for Australian Defence Force personnel, and I commend her for her support for ADF personnel in her electorate. I am proud to stand with other members today to acknowledge the dedication, bravery and sacrifice of the outstanding men and women of the Australian Defence Force, particularly those currently serving overseas.
Yesterday, I paid my respects at a commemoration service for the 49th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, held in my electorate of Dobell. Whilst I joined with others across the nation to pay our respects to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on foreign shores, I could not help but think of the current generation of men and women in our Defence Force who are serving overseas, particularly those whom I was privileged to meet in the UAE and Afghanistan.
Currently, there are over 2,000 Australian Defence Force personnel deployed in overseas operations to protect Australia's national interest, to support our international partners and to help maintain global peace and security. Recent deployments include troops primarily from the Royal Australian Army 7th Brigade in Brisbane, who have been deployed as part of the Building Partner Capacity mission in Iraq, to train Iraqi army personnel in their fight against Daesh. I was privileged to travel with the men and women of this deployment last April, when I participated in the ADF Parliamentary Program. Being able to participate in this program and meet with ADF personnel deployed in the Middle East and Afghanistan was a huge honour and an experience I will treasure forever. Over the week the parliamentary group met with ADF personnel serving at Al Minhad and Al Dhafra and in Kabul. I want to thank those I met for their hospitality, openness and frankness in sharing personal stories and views—and it was great to meet a Dobell local, Ken.
As a mother I could not help but see the faces of my children in these young men and women that we joined during our induction on arrival in the UAE. I am in awe of the professionalism, attitude and dedication of these young people. During our briefings we met with ADF personnel in their places of work. It was inspiring to see the many postcards and drawings which had been sent by Australian children that they had on display. The troops mentioned the excitement of receiving a care package and how much it meant to them to know that people back home were thinking of them. Last Christmas, in conjunction with the Berkeley Vale scouts, my office sent care packages, and I recall our excitement when we received thanks from the troops who had received our packages.
Our troops are an amazing group of individuals who ask for nothing. However, a simple message or a token of care does mean a lot to them. I encourage every proud Australian to let these men and women know how much they are valued and honoured. There are numerous ways in which the Australian public can show their appreciation, including by sending an email message or a postcard to the troops and, as I mentioned before, by care packages, which can be sent via Australia Post. Members of the public can also make a donation to the RSL Australian Forces Overseas Fund, which, in turn, prepares and sends care packages. The Australian Defence Force also encourages the public to consider making a lasting contribution by donating to the RSL, Legacy or Soldier On.
During our many conversations we learnt a lot about the families back in Australia. Whilst we are acutely aware of the sacrifice of those on overseas deployment, it is important that we acknowledge the families of service personnel here in Australia. Recently I was honoured to present a certificate of service to Afghanistan veteran Darren Sharpe. During our meeting I spoke with Darren's wife and met two of their children. Darren's wife spoke of the challenges faced by Defence families, particularly when a spouse is deployed overseas. Many of our ADF service personnel have undertaken numerous overseas deployments, and one can only imagine the strain that this can place on a relationship. I believe we owe it to Defence families to ensure that, in the absence of their loved ones, they receive the ultimate respect and support they deserve.
In addition to expressing my gratitude to our ADF service personnel, I wish to mention and pay tribute to the 41 photographs proudly displayed at the Al Minhad and Kabul military bases. The 41 faces of those who served proudly but did not come home are etched in my memory. On behalf of the Dobell community and all Australians: lest we forget. To these brave men and their families, we are indebted to you forever for your bravery and your ultimate sacrifice. To all our troops overseas: stay safe. I commend this motion to the House.
It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate. I think it is extremely important to acknowledge all Australian Defence Force personnel, whether they are at home or overseas. We know that there are 2,100 Australians currently serving overseas. However, for them to be able serve overseas requires the support of tens of thousands of Defence Force members here in Australia who, by doing the training and the work back home, make it possible for their Defence Force brothers and sisters to be deployed. I want to thank all of them and recognise their ongoing commitment to our national security.
We have people deployed overseas from every arm of the services. From the Air Force there are pilots, engineers, refuellers, logisticians, communicators—the full panoply of trades that are required for an aircraft to fly in a battle situation. These are very important tasks. It is not only the role of our front-line pilots who may be flying over Iraq; it is the role of all those who support our operations overseas, in this case in the Middle East. We have heard about the Navy in the Gulf. The Newcastle is currently there and is soon to be replaced by the Melbourne. But we do not hear nearly enough about those sailors involved in border protection work, those sailors off the northern Australian coast sailing patrol boats who are working with others in the Border Force—previously in Customs vessels—to prevent people wanting to come to this country by sea from coming here. However, I do not believe we understand or really appreciate the dreadful nature of some of this work. We can debate, as we do in this place, the merits or otherwise of people being stopped by our vessels, but it is these sailors, both men and women, who have and have had the responsibility of retrieving bodies out of the water and of looking after men, women and children in desperate situations. They are doing this on our behalf, and I do not believe we give them enough acknowledgement.
We see the work which is being done in the Middle East—and thank God it is being done! We acknowledge the work of our special forces in Iraq. We understand the nature of the Air Force's role in the Middle East. We see the role of our trainers in Afghanistan. We know how important these elements are. We know how important it is that we support them in that work. But I want to mention specifically and especially these people working off our northern coastline on patrol boats. I want to say this to them: although at last in the previous parliament you got medallic recognition for your operations, the fact is you carry out a vital service for this country and I do not believe we give you enough credit for what you do.
We know that a lot is being said about the need to make sure that, when soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen leave the service, they are properly cared for and looked after; we now have on-base advisory services from the Department of Veterans' Affairs trying to address some of the transition issues. But we still do not acknowledge enough the families of those who are working in the Defence Force or the strain that it places on partners and on children to have their partner or parent deployed for six or nine weeks at a time, off the northern coast, uncertain of when they are coming home, and then to see them go off again very quickly. The men and women who look after the interests of our serving men and women are very brave Australians. They deserve our proper recognition, just as those who are in uniform do. I want to thank them, as I do the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, for the magnificent job that they do securing Australia.
I thank the Member for Solomon for moving this motion in support of the Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas. I know that her electorate is home to a significant number of serving ADF personnel and their families based in Darwin. I know that she has a genuine interest and concern for their ongoing welfare. I join with the comments from the member for Lingiari and the acknowledgement that he has paid to many of our serving personnel.
Similarly, my electorate of Ryan is home to about 7,000 defence personnel—one of the largest Defence Force populations of any electorate in Australia. The reason for this is that Ryan is home to the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, where many of these personnel are stationed, and neighbour to Amberley air base, in the adjacent seat of Blair. Having an active Defence Force base in my electorate means that I have the honour of attending many formal occasions at the base. Tradition and ceremony are important to the ADF, and few ceremonies are more poignant than the farewells to ADF personnel as they depart on active missions overseas.
On two occasions this year I have had the honour of participating in ceremonies to farewell troops about to be deployed overseas. It is a strange mix of emotion—excitement and solemnity from the troops; pride and apprehension from their families. Above all else, I am always struck by the outstanding professionalism and quality of Australian Defence Force personnel. We should always remember the service they provide to our nation in protecting our freedoms and advancing our interests overseas.
At the time the Member for Solomon submitted this motion, more than 2,000 ADF personnel were serving abroad. In the consideration in detail of the defence portfolio, the Minister advised me that that number now stands at more than 2,500. Several hundred of those are from 7 Brigade, based at Gallipoli Barracks. Around 300 ADF personnel are currently at Camp Taji, in Iraq, as part of Operation OKRA. Taji is a major defence base, and Australian forces are working with our New Zealand counterparts to train the Iraqi army. This is an important job, as the Iraqi army is at the front line of global efforts to contain and defeat ISIL—or Daesh—who currently occupy parts of Iraq and Syria. We need to do all we can to ensure that Iraqi forces have the knowledge and training they need to get the job done. In addition to forces stationed at Taji, Australian Hornet fighter aircraft are flying out of the United Arab Emirates in support of the mission. A further 170 special forces and related forces are on the ground at the international airport compound at Baghdad and have been there since September last year. They have been doing the very important job of training Iraqi counter-terrorism special forces.
Aside from Operation OKRA, a further 1,000 Australian personnel are supporting Operation HIGHROAD in Afghanistan and Operation ACCORDION in the broader Middle East region. A further 300 are involved in Operation MANITOU, tasked with promoting maritime security and stability in the Middle East region. Outside of the Middle East, several hundred ADF personnel are participating in Operation RESOLUTE, to keep our maritime borders secure in our region.
Even after the initial headlines fade, Australian Defence Force personnel keep working until the job is done. For example, a total of 34,000 personnel rotated through Afghanistan during Australia's decade-long engagement in that nation. In fact, our engagement in Afghanistan is the longest military involvement by Australian personnel in the history of our nation. While we acknowledge the service of our Defence Force personnel as they depart to advance our interests in conflicts overseas, we must also remember the families they leave behind. Coming from a family with strong links to the Defence Force, I know that it can be difficult when loved ones are deployed overseas. As Australians we should acknowledge the sacrifice of the families of Defence Force personnel, just as we do for the troops themselves.
Australia has a long and proud military history. From the Boer War to the forging of the traditions of Anzac during the First World War, through the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam and more recent conflicts, Australians have served their country with distinction in times of conflict. We honour them, we thank them for their service and—to the current ADF personnel serving overseas—we wish them a successful mission and, importantly, a safe return.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I inform the House that earlier today, Monday, 17 August 2015, I issued a writ for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Canning in the state of Western Australia to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Donald James Randall. The dates in connection with the by-election are fixed as follows: close of rolls—Monday, 24 August 2015; close of nominations—Thursday, 27 August 2015; declaration of nominations—Friday, 28 August 2015; polling day—Saturday, 19 September 2015; return of writs—on or before Wednesday, 25 November 2015.
Labor does support the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. That said, there are some issues that stakeholders have raised with the opposition, and I am sure also with the government, regarding the bill. I want to take this opportunity to highlight those issues to the government, in addition to the concerns the opposition has. No doubt the minister will be aware of these concerns, as many of them were raised during the consultation period and again following the exposure draft.
This bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Australian Consumer Law, which is set out in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, to extend the unfair contract term protections currently available to consumers to cover businesses with fewer than 20 employees agreeing to standard form contracts valued at less than a prescribed threshold. The bill does this by amending the Australian Consumer Law, which is in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to cover standard form contracts that are valued below a prescribed threshold.
The prescribed threshold applies when one party to the contract is a small business with fewer than 20 employees—that is done by a headcount approach applied when defining what a small business is—and the up-front price under the contract does not exceed $100,000, or $250,000 if its duration is more than 12 months. The up-front price is defined in section 12BI(2) of the ASIC Act. It must be disclosed at or before the time that the contract is entered into. Part 2 of the ASIC Act contains provisions that protect consumers from unfair contract terms. This chapter extends these provisions to also cover small business contracts. The existing concepts of 'unfair' and 'standard form contract' can be found in sections 12GB and 12BK of the ASIC Act. The ASIC Act and the ACL currently contain minor consumer unfair contract term protections. The ASIC Act's requirements apply to financial services and products, and the ACL applies to the supply of goods and services other than financial services or products and the sale or grant of an interest in land.
The government has indicated the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission were provided with $1.4 million in the 2014-15 budget to support the implementation of this bill. However, what is of concern to many stakeholders is the government's own estimates of the additional compliance costs that will be carried by business. The government's own explanatory memorandum states:
Persons who offer contracts to small businesses may incur a once-off transitional cost (including seeking legal expertise) to implement any system changes and ensure contract terms comply with the unfair contract terms law. This cost is estimated to be $50 million in the first year …
There are many in the business community who rightly feel this estimate is on the conservative side and claim this will add many millions of dollars in red tape compliance costs for business. The explanatory memorandum also notes:
Businesses that offer low-value standard form contracts to small businesses may need to review and amend their contracts to ensure they are compliant with the new protections.
I have received many representations from the business community, who have noted their strong concerns about these costs, along with other substantive issues, which I will note in my contribution this morning. There is no doubt that much of the small business sector in Australia sees this bill as being the answer to many of their problems, or issues they deem to be problems. For some time now, small business representative groups and stakeholders have lobbied governments on both sides of politics to have unfair contract terms currently available to consumers extended to small business.
I have heard many stories, told in many ways, from small businesses and small business groups that small businesses, like consumers, are offered contracts on a 'take it or leave it' basis and often lack the resources to understand or negotiate contract terms. This can result in a risk to the parties, mostly the small business party, who are often less able to manage these risks. As we all know, the costs of obtaining legal advice, particularly for low-value contracts, are often prohibitive and sometimes disproportionate to the potential benefits. These views are strongly held and have been imparted to me by various characters from peak representative groups in many different ways. This is what our democracy allows for, and that is a good thing. I get that, and I understand that this issue is very real for many small business people.
Equally, and as importantly, when a change of this nature and significance is being considered, there will undoubtedly be those who have an opposite view—that the consequences of such a change will have an equally negative impact on their business. I am very conscious that there are many concerns within the business community over what some see as the far-reaching impacts of applying unfair contract protections to standard form contracts between business-to-business interactions. Many have expressed the view that, while the laws would provide some protections to small businesses, extending them would also expose small businesses to claims from other small businesses regarding unfair terms.
I think it is also important here to note that, in the government's consultation regulatory impact statement, RIS, which was issued by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand, the Office of Best Practice Regulation observed that the RIS acknowledges (1) there is limited empirical evidence about the scope of the problem being experienced by small business; and (2) the benefits and cost of the options are difficult to measure. Yet it is clear from the commitment made by the minister before the last federal election, and again in the government's options paper, that the minister was intent on bringing in legislation that would extend the UCT provisions to standard form contracts involving small business. The government's own consultation paper even notes option 3, the legislative option, as the preferred option, with option 1, the status quo, and option 2, a light touch or non-regulatory response, which was already ruled out.
I can inform those opposite—that is, the government—that it was not only the Labor Party that noted the government was then seeking evidence that such an extension was justified. The problems are that some stakeholders see this bill as having the potential to seriously damage business confidence and certainty. It is for this reason that I am highlighting these concerns here today. It is often said that without proper and rigorous analysis we end up with laws that are not fit for purpose. On this side of the House, we seek to prevent that where possible.
By way of general comment, I would like the minister to take seriously the feedback from stakeholders. Labor is aware there remain serious concerns in some quarters about the inclusion of retail leases in the bill, and there have been concerns expressed to the opposition by those from the finance and banking sectors, from the automotive industry and even from the franchise sector. The minister is on the record many times about Australia being well down the rankings for government regulatory burdens placed on business and industry, yet here in this bill it seems the government is adding another layer of compliance, regulation and burden. It is not Labor's position one way or the other to support or oppose the views of stakeholders, but it is proper for me to bring forward these concerns here, particularly so as to prevent adverse outcomes for all parties once the legislation becomes law. As I said earlier, Labor will support the bill but, at the same time, we want to ensure the legislation does not end up creating a situation where both parties to an agreement lose out because of what may in the end be well-intentioned but ill-conceived legislation. This is why Labor is flagging these concerns, in the hope that the Senate economics legislation and references committees closely scrutinise these matters when reviewing the bill.
It is also important to recognise that it was a Labor government that introduced a national law to regulate unfair terms in contracts between individual consumers and businesses in 2010, as part of the reforms underpinning the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law regulates unfair contract terms. It provides that a term of a standard form consumer contract is void if the term is unfair. A term is unfair if: (1) it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract; and (2) it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and (3) it would cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to a party if it were to be applied or relied on. These reforms commenced on 1 January 2011, and are set out as a schedule to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It is worth noting that the unfair contract provisions for consumers have only been in place since 2010, so any view on their effectiveness in such a short time is not yet available. Indeed the Minister only announced a review of the Australian Consumer Law last month; nevertheless, we will observe any findings from the review closely. I will also note that, at the time of the changes to the ACL back in 2010, Treasury flagged that the extension of the unfair contract terms to business-to-business contracts could result in increased costs to businesses. The bill confirms Treasury's concerns.
In terms of the current laws, the status quo means a small business has no legal protection if a term in a standard form contract is unfair, unless there is some other factor, such as unconscionable conduct or misleading or deceptive conduct occurring in the context of the contract. In lay terms, small businesses do not have recourse to the protections set out in the Australian Consumer Law which render void unfair terms in standard form contracts entered into by individual consumers. Labor is aware there is support for the bill from key small business stakeholders and interest groups. It is for this reason Labor will support the bill. However, it is prudent to highlight in this place the concerns of all the stakeholders, and some very significant ones at that.
Labor is also of the view, given the significance of the change and the impact this legislation will have, that the government should commit to a two-year-post-implementation review of the legislation to measure its effectiveness for all businesses. This is consistent with good practice and with the government's recent announcement to review the Australian Consumer Law. A two-year-post-implementation review acknowledges the concerns raised by some stakeholders, regarding the high costs of compliance and the red-tape burden imposed by the bill, whilst providing support for the majority of small business stakeholders in favour of the bill. It is well known the coalition went to the last election committing to extend unfair contract protections to small business, but it is equally important for the coalition, now they are in government, to hear and act on the concerns of all stakeholders when serious issues are raised in relation to small business. Labor supports the bill.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to again talk about small business, the engine room of our economy, and to speak today about this bill, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. This bill will amend legislation in order to extend unfair contract protections to small business contracts. Between 1 January 2011 and the end of December 2014, the ACCC received 1,375 small business complaints relating to unfair contract terms. While there are a number of benefits to standard form contracts, as they save businesses time and resources, there are also a number of drawbacks associated with them; in particular, they are not negotiated, and they are often one-sided and include terms embedded in the fine print.
In 2013, the coalition made the election commitment to provide a fair go for small business. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, for this piece of legislation that honours another one of our election commitments in relation to the small business sector. Small-business owners are hard-working and innovative people who are focused on growing our economy, creating jobs and frequently contributing to our local community. Small businesses are often behind the company logos you see sponsoring our local sporting clubs, donating to local charities and creating local jobs. Over the recent parliamentary recess I had the opportunity to visit a number of businesses in my electorate of Forde, and they are just a representative sample of some of the 11,000 small businesses in my electorate. Many of them are already benefiting from the positive effects from this year's budget measures for small business. This bill is another important reform that will help give small businesses access to a level playing field, so they have the capacity to grow, to invest and to create more jobs.
This legislation is a welcome new protection for small businesses, which often lack the resources to negotiate standard form contracts. The measures outlined in this bill have been developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. These include the general public, businesses, industry groups, and Commonwealth, state and territory consumer agencies, as well as regulators and small business commissioners. The 10-week public consultation process to gather information about the extent of the problem attracted more than 80 submissions and around 300 survey responses. As part of the consultation process for this bill, our government found that, like consumers, small businesses are vulnerable to the inclusion of unfair terms in standard form contracts. This is because they often lack the resources to identify unfair terms and to engage in negotiations over the terms of a contract; the bargaining power to successfully negotiate the terms of a contract; and the resources and bargaining power to resist the enforcement of those unfair contract terms.
Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010, and it is well and truly overdue that we provide similar protections to small business. Stakeholder feedback found there was significant support for addressing the problem through a legislative extension of the current consumer unfair contract terms law. This bill will amend the Australian Consumer Law, set out in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as well as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, to extend the consumer unfair contract terms protections to cover standard form contracts, which are small business contracts valued below a prescribed threshold. It is time that small businesses receive the protection they need when offered standard form contracts. This bill provides a remedy for small businesses when unfair contract terms have been included in these standard form contracts.
There are three main elements to this bill. Firstly, in both the ASIC Act and the Australian Consumer Law, this bill applies the unfair contract terms provision to small business contracts. A contract is defined as a small business contract if at least one party to the contract has fewer than 20 employees and its value is below the prescribed threshold. Measures relating to the ASIC Act were agreed to by the Assistant Treasurer and the states and territories were notified of the amendments to the ASIC Act, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Measures relating to the ACL were agreed to by the majority of states and territories, as required under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law.
The second branch of the small business contract test is that the value of the contract must not exceed $100,000 or $250,000 for a multi-year contract. This transaction value threshold was chosen so protections apply when small businesses engage in day-to-day transactions, while encouraging them to conduct due diligence on larger contracts fundamental to the success of their business. Based on the consultation survey results, around four in five small business standard form contracts will be covered by these reforms.
The final element of this bill is the mechanism that will allow the government to exempt laws that it deems equivalent to unfair contract terms law. This is about avoiding regulatory duplication and unnecessary compliance costs in sectors where there are equivalent, enforceable protections against unfair contract terms.
Once this bill receives royal assent it will take effect within six months. During that period, the regulators will engage with traders to assist them in complying with the new law. Overall, this bill introduces an important reform to restore time and resources to small business. It will allow small businesses to grow, invest and create jobs rather than investing their time navigating costly and time-consuming contract terms.
We want Australia to be the best country in which to start and grow a small business. We promise the Australian small business men and women a strong economy, less red tape and a commitment to extend to the small business sector the unfair contract term protections currently available to consumers. This reform is an important one and will have a tremendous impact on the small business community. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015, which I believe will protect more than 13,000 small businesses in my electorate of Durack. This bill further demonstrates my and the Abbott government's passion for small business. Since this government came into office in September 2013, employment has risen by 2.9 per cent, with some 335,000 new jobs created. As of last month, employment is at a record high of 11,810,700 jobs. This growth is largely due to the government's sound economic management and our policy platform, which is completely unmatched by those sitting opposite.
I have met with a number of small business owners who, of course, have been very pleased with the opportunity for a $20,000 tax deduction in this year's budget. This bill will now extend unfair contract term protections available to consumers to small businesses.
This government took more than 20 small business promises as part of our small business policy to the last election, and this is just one of those promises. Small business, as we know, is the economic backbone of not just Durack but Australia and, as one of the largest employers in Australia, it deserves this protection of the law.
This bill extends the consumer unfair contract term protections in the ASIC Act and the Australian Consumer Law to small business contracts. It also makes provision for exempting small business contracts which are subject to prescribed laws deemed equivalent to the unfair contract term protections.
Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010. The government and I recognise that we need reform to ensure small businesses are protected in line with consumers. Small businesses often face the same vulnerabilities as consumers and should receive protections when offered those 'take it or leave it' types of contracts. Extensive consultations have indicated small businesses across a range of industries have concerns with unfair terms. Under these protections, the legislation will apply to small businesses which have fewer than 20 employees, combined with a transaction value threshold of $100,000 or $250,000 for a contract longer than 12 months. These protections will come into effect six months after the bill becomes law.
Protection of small business is something I have been passionate about throughout my career of 25-odd years in the private sector. Unfair contract terms are a significant concern to small businesses. The bill will allow a court to strike out a term of a small business contract that it considers to be unfair. Once this bill passes, the government will have delivered every small business commitment that we took to the last election—proof that this government is good for small business and that we are the best friend small business will ever have. Again, this bill illustrates this government's commitment to small business.
According the Australian Bureau of Statistics as of June last year, agricultural small businesses make up nearly 30 per cent of small businesses in Durack. This means over 3,600 agricultural small businesses will benefit from having the extension of the consumer unfair contract terms protections to small businesses. This, of course, is music to the ears of our farmers, who have previously welcomed the government's assistance. This includes the tax deduction available for water infrastructure, accelerating three-year tax write-downs for fodder assets and the drought relief that we have announced since coming to office. Agriculture is not the only industry that will benefit from this bill once it is passed, with more than 2,200 construction small businesses and over 2,000 distribution service small businesses in Durack also benefitting from the legislation.
This bill will ensure that small businesses confidently enter standard contracts for day-to-day activities, where the cost and time of reviewing these contracts—as well as seeking legal advice—can be enormous. As someone who used to advise small businesses, I know only too well how expense that exercise can be. Under this bill, the government will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in small business contracts, providing a more efficient allocation of risk in these contracts, and support small business confidence in agreeing to contracts. This bill is fresh air to the diverse small business sector within Durack.
To further assist small businesses with this measure, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was provided with $1.4 million in the last budget to support the implementation of this bill. This money will support businesses' transition to the new protections. This will be of great benefit to the hundreds of rural, regional and remote towns in Durack, who do not have the same media coverage as those in the cities. This will be an opportunity to learn about the assistance this bill will provide to them. Following this, the ACCC will move to a more enforcement focused approach to dealing with unfair contracts.
This bill goes to the heart of the Abbott government's values in ensuring that Australia is the best country in the world to start and grow a small business. Consumers have had these protections since 2010, and the government believes in protecting Australian small businesses and consumers equally as well. The government believes that a strong small business sector leads to a strong economy, and only this government can deliver such confidence in our economy. Since coming to office, we know that we have axed the carbon tax, axed the mining tax, cut red tape and reduced the business tax rate, all of which has led to job growth and a more prosperous small business sector.
This bill gives small businesses the protection they need and deserve in order to flourish in the future. As a member of an electorate which has over 13,500 small businesses, I am encouraged by the protection that a diverse range of industries will receive under the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. The dry part of this speech will be outlining exactly what we are trying to do here. This bill contains amendments to extend the consumer unfair contract terms protections in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to cover small business contracts valued below a prescribed threshold. You will find that over 1,375 complaints were made to this, so this is something that we took to the election in 2013 and said that we would address this issue. I believe that this bill, in a large part, does do that.
What is covered in this bill? At the time of this agreement, the contract must meet the following criteria: at least one party is a business which employs fewer than 20 persons by headcount, excluding casuals, and the consideration under the contract that is disclosed at the time does not exceed $100,000 or $250,000 if the contract is more than one year in duration. Based on 2014 data, over 80 per cent of business contracts will be covered by these reforms. This will allow a court to void any unfair term of the formed contract. For example, a term that allows the business offerer in the contract to unilaterally change the price or key terms could be considered unfair. This will give small businesses greater confidence to enter into contracts, invest and grow.
I just want to assure my small businesses and my subcontractors in my area that there are still questions that have to be addressed. The thing I like most about what Minister Bruce Billson and Treasurer Joe Hockey are doing in this space is that they understand that this is not a panacea. They understand that this is not going to cover absolutely everything, because it is only 80 per cent of the contract signed by people in this space. But what is a contract? My definition of a contract is an agreed price between two parties. It does not even have to be in writing. How does that transpose into where we are going with competition and consumer protection and where we are going with that ASIC style of things when most people—subcontractors and that—do a lot of this work by a handshake or by an agreement on a broad range of things. Sometimes, there is very little stuff that is actually written down.
I always remember one great story about a mate of mine who was asked to quote on a job by a friend of his. My mate is a block layer. He gave him a quote and the builder, his mate, said, 'Look, you've missed out by a long shot. You've come second by a long way.' My mate, the block layer, said, 'That's weird, because I've gone in pretty hard on this. I'm surprised that I'm so far away from winning the job, but that's okay. If he's prepared to do it for that price, let him go with it.' Now, the other guy has gone on and gone broke. He has failed in his duty to finish the job. The builder has then rung up my mate, after the subcontractor had gone belly up, and said, 'Listen, mate. I'm in all sorts of strife over this. I need you to come in and finish this job.' My mate has said, 'I'll do it for you, but I'm not doing it for his price. I'm doing it for my price.' The builder said, 'Anything, anything.' So they shook hands and away they went. My mate finished the work, put in his cheque and got back the amount of money that was under the previous agreement. My mate played rugby league for a fair while and is not backward in coming forward, and block layers are by nature not shrinking violets. He has fronted this bloke and said, 'Mate, you have given me the wrong figure.' The builder said, 'No, we never agreed to that.' My mate took him to court over this and because there was nothing in writing the court decided that it would not hold up.
This bill will not protect people who do not dot their i's and cross their t's. This bill will not protect people who go out of their way and sign jobs for unrealistic figures. Government cannot protect people from agreeing to do work for figures that will send them broke. We have seen in my city a number of people on a number of jobs driving around now. I have spoken in this place before about truck drivers and tipper drivers with a quad dog that have been seemingly forced to take roles where they cannot make money. There seems to be two levels of pay here. That is a real issue and we must decide what has to be done.
Too many of these people that get into trucks and get into their own businesses are not in those businesses because they have a bachelor degree in economics or accounting and are able to plan these things correctly; they are in these businesses because they are good truck drivers, they know how to maintain a truck and they know how to drive a truck. They financed themselves into a truck during the boom times from the mid-2000s onward when there was lots of work on. They would have been driving for someone and then went out and worked for themselves.
The stories that are coming through to me are that too often people in this industry are running their businesses through their overdraft on their house or against their mortgage or against their property. They have $20,000 coming in a month and they think they are going to be okay, but what about their outgoings? They do not know over the course of the contract where they are going to end up. They do not have the wherewithal to do those things. It is not the business of this bill and it is not the business of the Treasurer or the Minister for Small Business to protect these people from signing these things, but it is a major issue in my electorate.
We are talking about the development of Northern Australia. We are talking about growing the population north of the Tropic of Capricorn from about one million today to between five and six million by 2050. That will not be developed and sustained by big business. That will not be developed and sustained by government. What will develop and sustain it is small business. For example, we have just seen another technical argument launched against the Adani Carmichael Mine project by an environmental group which has access to funds to fight litigation—what the Attorney-General has called environmental 'lawfare'. They are able to hold up a project on complete and utter nonsense, as far as I am concerned. We are talking about two endangered species which are in the legislation, which are in the terms of operation and which are in consideration of everything to do with the mine but they are not in a particular briefing paper. Therefore, we have once again been told that we have to hold back.
What we look like as an investment destination is not important to North Queenslanders. The fate of India and its power needs are not important to North Queenslanders. The fact that capital is very mobile and these sorts of projects do not go ahead are not problems for North Queenslanders. We are exposed because we are the ones who will build this thing, who will do the roads, who will build the bridges, who will build the houses, who will build the mine equipment and who will support the mine equipment. We are the ones who will provide food, accommodation and transport for the mine. It is the biggest industry in Queensland and here we are mucking around with these sorts of things and it does not seem to matter what contracts have been signed in that space.
We are talking about small business, and this government does take small business seriously. If we are to develop the north of Australia we must make sure that what we are doing in this space not only supports small business but is seen to support small business. We must be seen as a parliament that understands that from the bloke who turns up with the pie van to give the guys their smoko to the people that work from the port all the way out to Carmichael Mine and back to form the triangle at Abbot Point that there are jobs in there sustaining small businesses not just in towns but Charters Towers, Bowen, Ayr, Home Hill, all the way out to Clermont and all those places in between. Those are the things that we have to do as a government and those are the things that we have to do as a region in Northern Australia to make sure that we are sending the right messages to small business.
A lot of this stuff that we are doing with small business here is about sending the message that we understand the pressures that small businesses are under. We understand that people do not start their small businesses because they love filling out forms. We understand that small business people do not do this because they want to do more compliance work. What we as a government must do is send the message to small business that we are with you, that we support you, that we will get our hand out of your pocket, that you will no longer be tax collectors for us and compliance officers for us, and that you will be the people who create the wealth, create the jobs and create the prosperity for our region and for our country into the future. That is what we must do as an organisation in this place. That is why this bill here is a great start.
All these measures we have done about these things in isolation are not a panacea, they are not a fillip and they are not a cure-all. What they do is send the message to the people of this country that we understand where the jobs are created and that we understand where the wealth is created. What we are seeing in my region too often is that the big businesses come in and do the big infrastructure projects and the profit does not stay in Northern Queensland and the profit does not wash through our region. What we have to do is send the message to small business that they will be supported, and if they are on a contract that it will be fair and that it will be paid. I do not know how we can properly protect people who do subcontract work with government contracts because sometimes people work for less because it is government work and they are guaranteed a payment.
Only the person who signed the contract is guaranteed a payment. The person who is working on the site as a subcontractor or as a contractor is as exposed on government work as he is on any private work—if the builder goes belly up, he is exposed. When you are a contractor or a block layer, there is no way in the world you can go back to take your blocks back. You can, in some instances, go in and get your scaffolding equipment and those sorts of things, but you cannot pull your concrete up and you cannot get the steel in that concrete to take it back for a refund.
We as a government must send the tacit message to small business: we understand that you are under pressure, we understand where you want to go and we are doing what we can to make sure you are going to get there. Our message is: if you want to grow your business and if you are prepared to risk your home to give your children and your family a better chance to self-determination, then you should be supported. That is what I like about this bill and this suite of bills that the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business are bringing forward.
Labor did not have a policy on this in the 2013 election, and they are completely bored when it comes to these sorts of things. There are people on the other side who have had their own small business, and they should be supporting this. What we should be doing is making sure that these things are brought forward. We have to instil confidence in our community that we are in this; that we will back you and we will do whatever we can to make sure that you are able to deliver your product on time, on price and for the amount of money that you signed up for.
That is what this bill tries to do. Will it cover everything? Of course it will not, but it is certainly a message that I like to give to small businesses back at home, in Townsville, throughout North Queensland and for the entire development of Northern Australia: that what we are doing as a government is building those buildings, putting those markers of what we stand for and the direction we want to go. The Minister for Small Business has said—and this is a bloody beauty and I will back him on it—that all anyone in this country is after is a traditional fair go. There are kids up in the gallery, behind the glass, whose parents will have small businesses and whose parents work very hard—and all weekend to keep their trucks clean—and this bill is all about making sure that your parents are able to have a fair go. When you graduate from school and you want to take the opportunity to set up your own small business—be it as a fitter and turner or a boilermaker or a truck driver or anything you want to do—there is a government here today that is putting the markers down and prepared to support you when it is your turn. So make sure that when you go home and tell your mum and dad that there is a government here that supports them. I thank the House.
I am pleased to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. This bill amends the consumer unfair contract terms protection, currently in the Competition and Consumer Act and in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act to cover small business below a certain threshold as well as consumers.
I understand that the opposition is supporting this bill, but I have a bit of a long memory. I can remember that, when the Howard government was in power, the then Labor opposition went on about how important it was to have an unfair contract provision in the then Trade Practices Act and to extend it to small business. In fact, they were elected back in 2007 with the explicit promise that they would extend unfair contract terms and provisions to small business. We know what happened: after they broke so many promises, this is one that was perhaps forgotten—when they came to power they forgot all about that promise they made to small business. They excluded small business when they implemented those unfair contract provisions for consumers. Despite the promises before the election, small business did not get a look in. Under the rotisserie of five separate small business ministers in the previous Labor government, we saw 519,000 lost in small business—enough to fill the MCG five times over and still have change. The coalition is getting on with the job and extending those unfair contract provisions to small business.
There is an argument that there should be complete freedom of contract and that government has no place to interfere to amend contracts after they have been written, but that overlooks the fact that we already have many provisions, both in statutory and common law, that address contract terms. For many years we have had provisions in the old Trade Practices Act and now in the Competition and Consumer Act against misleading or deceptive conduct. Our courts can strike that out any contract or any term of a contract that has been entered into or has arisen through deceptive conduct. We also have the unconscionable conduct provisions in the Trade Practices Act and now the Competition and Consumer Act, where courts can strike out provisions that have been written into a contract through unconscionable conduct. In New South Wales there is the Contracts Review Act that enables courts to strike out unfair contract terms. There is also the old common law remedy of a liquidated damages provision which is inserted into a contract as a penalty clause. If those liquidated damages are not a genuine pre-estimate of a loss but rather are for revenue raising or are a threat or a deterrent, those provisions can also be struck out. That common law provision, unfortunately, in recent years has been undermined by several court decisions, where several smart lawyers have been able to come up with a concept that is not actually a breach of contract or a liquidated damage provision—but it clearly is and anyone in business understands that it is—and they have been able to convince several judges that it is not a penalty clause but merely a fee for service. Thankfully, the High Court has taken some action on this to clarify what is a penalty and what is genuine liquidated damages.
Recently the High Court determined that a penalty provision can be triggered even if it is not a breach of contract. That is a very important decision by the High Court that overrules decisions of the lower courts, where large businesses have been gouging their smaller customers. This provision will now hopefully prevent that. However, the High Court still did not clarify the provision where a penalty clause gives rise to an additional obligation. As an example of this, there was one case involving film distribution where the exhibitor was only allowed to show the film once. If he showed the film again, he had to pay a sum equivalent to four times the original hiring fee. The court did not characterise this as a penalty but as an option which the exhibitor could exercise and pay for because the stipulation gave rise to an additional obligation. This was deemed not to be a penalty clause, more a fee-for-service. But it is very important that there be a distinction between something a business actively does and something that happens beyond their control and they do through failure or force. That has not been recognised by the courts.
There are still some question marks at common law about what is a penalty clause and what is a genuine liquidated damages clause. Unfortunately, this has allowed some large businesses in our economy to simply gouge and rip off small business. But, by the provisions in this bill, that will occur no more. To those companies—they know who I am speaking about—who for decades have ripped off small business with penalty clauses by charging them upwards of 20 times above what the true fee should have been, when this bill goes through the Senate and when it achieves royal assent and the six-months period before it applies expires, they will no longer be allowed to gouge small business like they have for years. My warning to them is this: if they do not take the provisions in this bill seriously and amend their practices, they should be aware of a major class action against them.
There is one provision in this bill which puts the threshold where it applies. Firstly, the business can only have fewer than 20 persons by headcount, and the consideration that the contract has disclosed must not exceed $100,000, or $250,000 if the contract is more than one year in duration. These are debatable provisions. There is no limit where there is misleading or deceptive conduct. There is no limit on the number of employees or the amount of the contract where there is unconscionable conduct. There are no limits in the common law penalty provisions, but we put limits in this legislation. We need to see how that works, and if there are cases where those limits are shown to be inadequate we should not hesitate to come back into this chamber and amend them and lift them up.
It is all very well to have these provisions to give small business opportunities, but we need to make sure that small business has access to the law. Therefore I implore the ACCC, with the extra resources we have given them, to run test cases in this area. Currently there are many large businesses that simply laugh at their small-business customers and simply say that it does not matter what the law says, it does not matter what the facts are, they can bleed them dry with legal costs. That does not happen if the ACCC steps in. Six months after this bill receives royal assent and it becomes effective, I want to see the ACCC out there on the playing field taking action against those companies that are imposing these unfair contract terms on small business. We need to make sure that we have in this country an environment that encourages people to get out and have a go in small business. It is small business in this country that will drive our future jobs growth. It is small business, as it always has been, that creates innovation. It has done that throughout history. If we allow an economic aura to develop where small business is not given the opportunity to succeed, we will be less prosperous as a nation. The provisions in this bill are some of the many steps that this government is taking to give small business in this country a better chance and I commend it to the House.
I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Hume—a businessman in his own right before coming to this place.
Was that Hughes or Hume?
Hume. Is he the member for Hume?
Hughes.
Thank your, Mr Deputy Speaker, for correcting the record—he is my mate, Mr Kelly.
If you are going to give him acclamation, he deserves to have it recorded correctly!
Better directed at the right person, you reckon?
Yes. We do not want to bounce up the member for Hume too much, do we!
Sound advice from the chair. Most on this side of the House come from a small business background so we intently know the sensibility, the heartache, the stress and the anguish that small business people experience. There would not be too many times during a small business person's life when they do not have the panic, the worry, about their bills getting so high that they wonder where they are going to get their next sale from to meet their expenses. My electorate is predominantly horticultural; farmers are another extension of a small business. This legislation goes some way towards addressing unfair contract terms, which they deal with on a day-to-day basis, so it gives me great pleasure to address the Treasury Legislation Amendment(Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015.
The Abbott government are committed to ensuring Australia is the best place to start and grow a small business, because the choreographers of this bill have the mindset of small business. Mr Billson, our small-business minister—you would not find a more enthusiastic minister in this place—has held that portfolio for some time. When the other side were in government, it was like a roundabout of ministers holding that position. This is a senior position in our ranks and it is linked directly to Treasury and in direct communication with the Prime Minister.
The government took more than 20 small-business specific promises to the last election. A key promise was this commitment to extend to small businesses the unfair contract term protections available to consumers. So, with this legislation, we have met another small-business election commitment. That is because we are a party of small business, people who have been on that journey. Our party is not beholden to the big union movements. We run our own shows. Our members understand firsthand what it would be like to put their lives and sometimes their homes, if they are mortgaged, on the line to make sure that they provide jobs, opportunity and growth for our nation. The small-business sector is the engine room of our economy and provides more than 80 per cent of jobs. With more than two million actively trading small businesses, representing 96 per cent of all businesses, they are an important driver of the Australian economy. Australian small businesses are the drivers of enterprise, and, when the small business sector is performing well, the whole economy benefits. I repeat that: when the small business sector is travelling well, our economy is travelling well. Measures like this, measures that have been brought to this House, enhance small businesses and enable them to get the engine wheels of our economy moving.
It is those small-business men and women who are hit the hardest by poorly designed government policy by bureaucrats or politicians. While a solution might work for the big end of town, it could be completely removed from the real-life challenges for small businesses—and I see that firsthand in my electorate. Small businesses are personal. That is why Mr Abbott's coalition government are committed to ensuring small business is front of mind in every cabinet decision. That is why the coalition have moved the role of Minister for Small Business into the cabinet, as I alluded to earlier. We are committed to putting small business at the front and centre of policymaking, and that is why we have moved policymaking responsibility for small business to the Treasury portfolio.
As part of the 2015-16 budget, we developed the largest Jobs and Small Business package in this nation's history. It included $5.5 billion worth of incentives to help small business to start, grow, prosper and, importantly, create jobs. If we could get every small business to put on one more employee, our unemployment rate would not start with a six. With every policy incentive that we can bring to this House, we encourage that; that is the intent of this government.
The Jobs and Small Business package included a small business company tax cut to bring it to the lowest level in almost 50 years. That was enshrined in small business measures bill No. 2 or No. 3, which I had the opportunity to speak on. It also included an immediate tax reduction for all asset purchases by small businesses, up to $20,000. In my electorate, there is the Stark family at Warwick Cattle Crush who have an engineering firm, and they build livestock-handling equipment. Immediately after the budget, due to the amount of orders that flooded in because their price point is around $20,000, they put an extra five staff on. So that had the immediate effect that the government anticipated.
In addition, we understand that not all businesses are structured as companies, so the package included a five per cent tax discount for unincorporated businesses. I think that was in small business measures bill No. 4. That was a five per cent tax discount for every tax holder. So, if you have a tax system set up as a partnership, such as you and your wife, there was a tax deduction of up to $1,000 for each tax recipient. That measure was to try and match the tax deduction given to the incorporated sector with one for the unincorporated sector, of which 70 per cent of our small business sector is made up. The coalition understand small business and the vital contribution the sector makes to our communities and the economy.
Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since about 2010. However, the former government, despite its initial interest, decided not to offer similar protections to small business. In many cases, small businesses have no more market power or ability to vary 'take it or leave it' standard contract forms than an individual consumer but lack the consumer style protections that provide for an unfair term to be struck out of such contracts. We knew it was time that small businesses, which often have the same vulnerabilities as consumers, also received protections when offered 'take it or leave it' contracts.
This Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 seeks to amend the Australia Consumer Law, as set out in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. This legislation will extend consumer unfair contract term protection to cover standard form, small business consumer-like contracts that are valued at below the prescribed threshold.
This is a long sought after and very much welcome new protection for small business, and one that the coalition has long supported. Extensive consultation has indicated that small businesses across a wide range of industries have concerns about unfair terms. Unfair contract terms can come in a variety of forms and can be used to unfairly shift risk to another party who may not be well placed to manage it. For example, they may permit one party to unilaterally vary terms, limit their obligations, terminate or renew the contract, levy excessive fees on outstanding moneys or affect the availability of redress.
We are supporting small business to confidently enter standard-form contracts for day-to-day transactions where the cost and the time to review these contracts and seek legal advice can be disproportionately high. Under the new protections a court will be able to strike out a term for a small business contract that it considers unfair. This will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in contracts with small businesses. Under the new protection the contract will be a small business contract if at least one party has fewer than 20 employees and its value is below the prescribed threshold of $100,000, or $250,000 for a multiyear contract.
In designing the legislative amendment the government consulted extensively with stakeholders. The transaction value threshold was chosen so that the protections apply when small businesses engage in day-to-day consumer-like transactions, while encouraging them to conduct due diligence on large contracts fundamental to the success of their business. It is right and reasonable for all enterprises to seek advice on larger contracts beyond these values. It is important to make it clear that we do not believe it is the government's role to be contract nannies nor to be injecting agency bureaucrats to pore over specific clauses of multimillion dollar commercial transactions that small businesses should only enter into after much thought, careful examination and taking proper advice.
State and territory governments were actively engaged in the development of this measure and consumer affairs ministers formally agreed to the proposal to amend the Australian consumer law in April 2015, as required under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law. In line with the corporations agreement of 2002, the Commonwealth notified the states and territories that these legislative protections would be mirrored in the ASIC Act. The protections will come into effect six months after the bill receives royal assent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which the government provided $1.4 million to in the 2014-15 budget, will support businesses transition to the new protections. With this legislation the government is restoring time and resources back to Australia's two million small businesses to invest in their business's success rather than navigating a costly and time-consuming maze of standard form terms.
I take this opportunity to say that the coalition government are the champions of small business. Since coming to office we have reduced 50,000 pages of red tape, freeing up small businesses to be able to spend time with their clients rather than laboriously trolling over red tape until midnight. Our environment minister has approved just over $1 trillion worth of environmental approvals. That engine room will start coming through and small business will be the benefactor of those environmental approvals for our nation.
The horticultural sector, the agriculture sector and dairy farmers all rely heavily on contracts. This bill gives additional security. It gives additional protection to dairy farmers and to growers who may have an ongoing relationship with a multinational company or potentially one of two retailers. It allows them to then have an arbiter. It is our first step in getting away from take it or leave it contracts. The member for Forrest, the good government whip, has an electorate similar to mine. She is equally passionate about the regional and rural sector. Her electorate will receive an equal amount of benefit from this bill as mine will receive. I thank the House for its time.
I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wright, the previous speaker. I thank him for that contribution. The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Australian consumer law, which is set out in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, to extend the unfair contract term protections currently available to consumers to cover businesses with fewer than 20 employees agreeing to standard form contracts valued at less than a prescribed threshold. I also acknowledge the work of the Minister for Small Business, who is a tireless worker in this space.
In many cases, as we know, small businesses have no more market power or ability to vary the take it or leave it standard form contracts than an individual consumer does. However, they actually lack the consumer style protections that provide for unfair terms to be struck out of such contracts by courts. Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010. The ASIC Act and the ACL currently contain mirror consumer unfair contract term protections; however, existing laws for small business largely only address unfair behaviour in business dealings rather than unfair contract terms. It is time under this minister and this government that small businesses, which often face the same vulnerabilities as consumers, also receive protections when offered take it or leave it contracts. This legislation will extend the consumer unfair contract terms protections to cover standard form small business consumer-like contracts that are valued below a prescribed threshold.
This is a long sought after and very much welcomed new protection for small business and one that the coalition has long supported. Extensive consultations have indicated that small businesses across a wide range of industries do have concerns and issues with unfair contracts. The consultation has included the general public, businesses, industry groups including farmer organisations, the Commonwealth state and territory consumer agencies, regulators and small business commissioners.
Unfair contract terms can come in a variety of forms and can be used to unfairly shift risks to another party who may not be well placed to manage them. For example, they may permit one party to unilaterally vary terms, limit their obligations, terminate or renew the contract, levy excessive fees on outstanding moneys or affect the availability of redress. This might, for example, include a large firm requiring payments from producers or processors in order to stock or sell their products—a practice that should in reality be called a kickback. This is not uncommon in some sectors of the Australian economy.
Under the new protections, a court will be able to strike out a term of a small business contract that it considers unfair. This will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in contracts with small business. The requirements of the ASIC Act apply to financial services and products, and the ACL applies to the supply of goods or services other than financial services or products and the sale or grant of an interest in land. The bill extends the consumer unfair contract term protections in the ASIC Act and the ACL to small business contracts that meet the prescribed criteria and makes provision for exempting small business contracts that are subject to prescribed laws that are deemed equivalent to the unfair contract term protections in the ASIC Act or the ACL and which are enforceable. Under the new protections, a contract will be a small business contract if at least one party has fewer than 20 employees and the value of the prescribed threshold is $100,000 or $250,000 for a multiyear contract. Small businesses also often lack in-house legal expertise. The cost of obtaining legal advice, particularly for low-value contracts, can be disproportionate to the potential benefits of entering into such contracts. Where small businesses decide to not enter into contracts due to their lack of confidence in understanding and negotiating terms or due to the cost of obtaining legal advice, they may miss out on market opportunities.
Why is this sort of action necessary? I want to look at the actions of those who might seek to misuse market power in contract negotiations. As far back as 2009, the Financial Review reported that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had recognised the power that Coles and Woolworths have in shopping centres and sought to broker a deal to stop them abusing this power. I want to talk about the court case in 2011 and the judgement made by Justice Gordon in relation to the case between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Coles Supermarkets Australia. In the reasons for judgement, I notice that Justice Gordon stated in her introduction that Coles 'is the second largest retailer of grocery products in Australia'. She said that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with a number of suppliers of products that it sold. She said:
Coles' misconduct was serious, deliberate and repeated. Coles misused its bargaining power. Its conduct was 'not done in good conscience'. It was contrary to conscience. Coles treated its suppliers in a manner not consistent with acceptable business and social standards which apply to commercial dealings. Coles demanded payments from suppliers to which it was not entitled by threatening harm to the suppliers that did not comply with the demand. Coles withheld money from suppliers it had no right to withhold.
That is was in the introduction.
Further in section 8, Justice Gordon also said that in claims proceeding the ACCC alleged that Coles by its conduct in relation to its dealings with the five named suppliers contravened section 22 of the then ACL. In general terms, that conduct involved Coles seeking payment from those suppliers outside of the terms of the arrangement negotiated between the supplier and Coles. The payments demanded by Coles were for so-called profit gaps, waste and markdowns, short or late deliveries and were deducted by Coles from moneys due to be paid to that supplier for products that it had already supplied to Coles. That was the conduct of Coles.
I am particularly concerned about the conduct of Coles in this matter and other matters. We cannot forget who actually owns Coles—and this is the thing that disappoints me the most and gives me the most grief. Since 2007, Coles has been owned by Wesfarmers. This cooperative of farmers was established by a group of WA farmers over 100 years ago. It has had its 100th anniversary. It has grown to be one of the biggest companies in Australia. I had a look at it, because what concerned me most was when I read about this sort of unconscionable conduct. When I thought about Wesfarmers, the Wesfarmers I knew, and the cooperative that it was, I was astounded that this sort of behaviour could happen in a company owned by Wesfarmers. I looked at the book to celebrate its 100th anniversary last year, in 2014, called 'A rural perspective'. When I was thinking about the treatment of Coles' suppliers, I thought I would look at what drives a company like Wesfarmers. I looked at the comments in the book by the chairman, because these are its historic values. Mr Every spoke well and long in the introduction to that book about the importance of Wesfarmers' culture. He said it was a culture 'underpinned by an operating style of integrity, honesty, openness, transparency and community involvement'. He also said, 'Our values today also trace to our origins patience, honesty, boldness, innovation, resilience and a long-term commitment to the communities in which we operate.' I find that those very, very essential parts of the Wesfarmers culture are inconsistent with the behaviour of Coles, as proved by the case taken by the ACCC, towards those suppliers.
I think it is a great tragedy that a company that had its foundations in the rural sector could condone this sort of behaviour by Coles in 2011—keeping in mind that Wesfarmers has owned Coles since 2007. Yes, it has restructured and it is a company, but this is not the only instance of such behaviour. We have seen in numerous ways the influence of these two major supermarkets, particularly in a state like Western Australia. I refer here to my own industry: the dairy industry, where the majority of milk that is produced in the state is sold in the domestic market and where the $1 dollar milk strategy has had a disproportionate effect on prices paid to farmers—and we are seeing that on a regular basis.
This type of legislation is particularly important for suppliers who are particularly vulnerable—and there are very few who are more vulnerable than those who produce a perishable product such as milk. Milk is not only produced on a daily basis; it has to be collected by a tanker on a daily basis. It has to be at a particular temperature. It has to meet a range of standards. It is then taken to a processor, processed and sold as quickly as possible. That means that the producer of a product is particularly vulnerable in the market. Often, in my state, they have very few buyers and very stringent conditions for the production of their product. That very vulnerability is exacerbated and then able to be taken advantage of.
I am particularly keen, through the bill before the House, to address some of the vulnerabilities that small businesses face. When we look at the bottlenecks for businesses throughout Australia, we can see there are those that can limit or restrict production. There can also be bottlenecks at the retail level in getting Australian food from the farm gate, from where it is grown, to the dinner tables around the nation. I looked at what Justice Gordon had to say. He mentioned in his remarks that Coles and Woolies between them control at least 60 to 70 per cent of the retail market. When you look at that avenue to market, the vulnerability of those that produce perishable product is even more apparent. That, of course, gave rise to the actions that Coles was able to take over a period in 2011. We know that in other countries, including the UK or the US, it is not as concentrated at all. This is a real concern. Historically, the Labor government chose not to act at all, so I am particularly pleased that we are starting the process here today.
We know that the ACCC is charged with keeping down costs and maintaining competition. We also know that often the income derived from food production in Australia does not reflect the effort or the risk involved, yet the drive to lower prices impacts on producers more than any other sector. We know that the income and profits for our food producers in Australia are lower than for other sectors and other industries. I know Australians value very much the produce that they have access to. We in this country know that our farmers produce some of the highest quality food in the world. They do it under sometimes very extreme conditions, given the nature of our climate. I will continue to represent them in every way that I can. I am particularly pleased that the government has chosen to assist small business through the legislation before the House.
I associate myself with the member for Forrest's comments about the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. Coles, as a business, was established in my electorate in the very small town of Wilmot in the far north-west of Tasmania. Tragically, 18 months ago the original Coles shop burnt down. Apart from the history that was lost, the tragic circumstances of that fire have created huge difficulties for the local community there. It is a small town with, essentially, no other businesses. It has really taken a huge effort by many people within that small community to offer even the most basic of services such as access to bread and milk, postal services and the other things that that business provided.
In my former life I was involved in a lamb export business. We had a customer in North America. It was a branded Tasmanian lamb project. We were able to offer the consumers in the New England part of North America a product that was traceable back to the individual farmers concerned. I remember well that at the time we were able to provide a better price to the producers concerned. The final sellers had a point of difference in the marketplace that they were able to take advantage of with the restaurants they supplied and also with retailers. It was a very small project—only about 300 lambs per week. We were not, unfortunately, able to get them killed in Tasmania, so we found an abattoir in Victoria. The abattoir involved was also a major contractor, as it happened, to Coles. We were not competing. We were going to an export market; Coles were using this abattoir for their domestic market. After six months of it going very well—it was not easy; it is never easy in business, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, as you well know—we were advised that we would no longer be able to use that particular facility. It was suggested that the processor involved was given an ultimatum: it was either us—and we were a very small proportion of their weekly kill—or the customer that they simply could not do without. They were left with no choice at all. This example goes to the heart of this bill—the small business portfolio more broadly and, specifically, unfair contract terms.
The purpose of this bill is to provide small businesses with the same provisions that individual consumers have. For a consumer with a contract with, for example, Telstra—or others—if there are terms within the contract that are unfair and are deemed to be unfair, there are provisions within the Competition and Consumer Act that allow individuals to contest or dispute that. That is less the case for small business. In essence, that is what this bill goes to. Additional funding of $1.5 million has been provided to the ATO for the implementation of this bill.
Is the member for Lyons going to tell us the end of this lamb story?
Was that an interjection, Deputy Speaker? In essence, our doors closed, and what had been quite a successful project for over six months, unfortunately, became too difficult for us. Everyone loses. I would like to believe that the customers that we established in North America were the biggest losers. But, of course, the farmers involved, who were supplying that contract, lost as well. Whilst it was not his bread and butter, the processor that we were dealing with at the time lost another part of his business. It certainly was not the majority of his business; as I highlighted, it was a very small part of his business. That was one example, as I say. We should never assume; I had assumed that I had completed the story.
Indeed, I think this has been one of the areas, as a government, in which the coalition have had real success. We took many commitments on small business to the election in 2013; we said we thought we could improve policy. Not least of all of those commitments was to put a small business minister into a cabinet. Small business is a critical part of the economy, particularly in an electorate like mine. Whether it is Bicheno or whether it is St Helens—and I was there on Friday and Saturday this weekend—there are no big businesses in this part of the world. So support for small business has been very much part of the story of the government since our election, and it has been a story of delivery—as have the free trade agreements that Minister Robb has been responsible for and, indeed, as have the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment. It worries me that all three are Victorians! They have had real success. They have really formed part of the success of the government and the things that the government can be very proud of over the past two years. The free trade agreements benefit small businesses in my electorate very much.
We are, as you well know, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, the party of small business. We understand that small businesses are the engine room in the communities that I represent. They are the people that, if they have the confidence, will employ locals. They are people that very often risk everything to start a business. Indeed, they deserve our respect at every stage. In the budget this year small businesses were the winners. Incorporated small business received a 1.5 per cent tax cut. Unincorporated small businesses—and, as we know, 70 per cent of small businesses around the country are unincorporated—will receive a $1,000 discount on their taxable income this year. Of course, there is the instant asset write-off, which has been welcomed. I have mentioned before in this place that the day after the budget of the New Norfolk I walked up the main street with a bit of material, making sure that the hairdressers all knew. They all knew that this was a good thing. They understood that of course they need to make a profit and, of course, that this was for money that they spent after May, which they could write off on 1 July this year. Of course, the same will apply the year after for assets up to $20,000—as many as they like. One of the vital areas within my electorate is agriculture; many of those are small businesses, and they have also benefited enormously—particularly in terms of the opportunity to be able to write off irrigation and water infrastructure. This has so been important. As a government, we have also supported infrastructure in that area by committing $60 million to the Tranche Two irrigation schemes within Tasmania.
As I mentioned before, the essence of this bill is to provide something more like consumer protections for small businesses dealing with big businesses. It does not suggest, though, that small businesses should sign bad contracts. This is not a nanny state. There is a responsibility and it is fundamental. There has been criticism by some that the figure of $100,000 should be raised to a larger number. But, if I am writing a contract for $1 million, I am probably going to get advice there, and one would assume that the advice that I get will be appropriate for an investment or a risk of that magnitude. This is not a nanny state. The provisions of this bill are there to be able to take out terms within an agreement that might, fundamentally, deliver. The interesting thing, Deputy Speaker Scott, as you well know, is that trade only occurs between two parties when there is a benefit to each of those parties. This will allow small businesses to be able, as consumers are, to remove individual terms within a contract agreement that are deemed and seen to be unfair. On that note, Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
It gives me great pleasure today to talk about leadership in rural and regional Australia and to welcome into this House eight outstanding leaders from Bright in the beautiful Ovens Valley: student leaders Max, Claire and Ben; teacher leaders Jean and Jenny; and parent leaders Gerard and Jason. Leaving home this morning at four o'clock and travelling to be with me today in Parliament House, they will return home this evening. Thank you.
The students of Bright P-12 College tell me it is a wonderful place to play sport, to be in the concert band, to do arts, to study Japanese and to play in the beautiful school grounds. They tell me that one of their favourite things has been going off and learning about leadership through the Halogen program.
Bright is in the foothills of the great Australian Alps. Just to its east is Mount Hotham and over the valley is Falls Creek. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, coming from Queensland, skiing is very important. Dinner Plain hosts another campus of the school, where over 100 students from P to 12 go to continue their education over winter. One of the other features of the Bright P-12 College is a community partnership between Wadeye in Central Australia and Bright—a wonderful success story of integration, exchange and enhancing Australian culture.
Today in this parliament I would like to acknowledge and thank the work of the parents, teachers and students of Bright and surrounding communities. Thank you for all that you do to make sure that our community has a resounding education program.
You have to love being back in the electorate when you see the re-opening of the Ulladulla marine rescue facility as the lead event on Saturday morning. Quite literally, Ken Lambert and his team have watched over the phoenix rebuild. Just over two years ago, a new training extension was opened. Four months later, callous vandalism caused it to be burnt to the ground. The Ulladulla community have worked tirelessly and generously to put their facility back in action.
That Saturday evening, Pat Fordham, who has been struggling with illness, showed her fiery, enthusiastic self as she celebrated turning 70 along with all her friends and supporters from the Vietnam Veterans Association. On Sunday afternoon, the village of Shoalhaven Heads showcased their community groups. Three thousand adults and children work alongside each other in an amazing array of community groups, including: Christine Talbot at the historical society; Robyn Flack, working towards the establishment of an aged-care facility; Emily Boorer and the Tall Timbers craft group, raising over $100,000 for Camp Quality; Nola Stevens from the Red Cross; Roger Tilley from the arboretum; Sandra from the Shoalhaven Heads fishing club; Lorraine Montgomery from the View Club; Max Flore from the RSL; Stewart Higgins, with more than 400 members in the Shoalhaven Heads Berry Football Club; Chris Patten and the Heads Handicraft donating to other locals; Jan Hoper from Meals on Wheels; Alan Ross and the computer club; Michelle Bishop and the spring fair; Greg Tedder from National Parks and Wildlife; Pam Clarke from the Lions Club; Helen Fear from Bushcare; Rob Bell from the Shoalhaven Heads Swimming Pool; and Laurie Talbot from the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum and Chamber of Commerce. All provide a unique network of help, assistance and community spirit.
I rise to congratulate Netball Australia and the International Netball Federation on a fabulous netball World Cup, held in Sydney across 10 days with record-breaking crowds watching 16 teams play in absolutely wonderful games. I would like to congratulate all countries, all teams and all associations for the wonderful show. I echo Molly Rhone, President of the INF, in saying that it was the most successful World Cup ever.
I would also like to congratulate coach Lisa Alexander and her team of great Australians, Michelle den Dekker and Margaret Caldow, and the Australia Diamonds team—led by Laura Geitz, along with Julie Corletto, Sharni Layton, Rebecca Bulley, Renae Hallinan, Kim Ravaillion, Kimberlee Green, Paige Hadley, Natalie Medhurst, Caitlin Bassett, Caitlin Thwaites and Erin Bell—on a fabulous tournament. Wonderful netball, great sportsmanship, great courage.
I would finish by saying thank you to everyone who plays, who coaches, who umpires and who administers the sport in every community across this nation. You have created this team. Every person who takes the court created this team. We truly are the netball nation.
Over the parliamentary recess, I was pleased to host the annual Deakin Community Awards. These awards are something that I really enjoy being part of. They provide a fantastic opportunity for the tireless volunteers and community groups in Deakin to come together and recognise some of our local unsung heroes. This year, around 100 award winners were selected for the Deakin Community Awards. In addition to this, an independent committee selected a list of five finalists, who went into the running to receive the overall Deakin Community Award. These finalists represent the absolute cream of the crop. They include Gus Puopolo, Kevin Poile, Ray Freeman, Liz Coles, and John and Jenny Fearn-Wannan, who were all honoured on the night.
In the end, there could only be one overall winner. This year the committee decided upon an outstanding person, Ray Freeman, as the overall Deakin Community Award winner. As a tireless volunteer over many years, Ray has been involved with Whitehorse Community Chest, Eastern Emergency Relief, the Lions Club of Nunawading and the Ringwood Cricket Club. I was absolutely honoured to recognise this tireless service.
I want to thank Aquinas College for hosting the evening, with over 400 guests, in particular the college's students for providing entertainment and a wonderful rendition of the national anthem. I also want to thank Mary-Anne Lowe for catering the event. Most importantly, I want to thank the Deakin community for getting behind these awards and all of our Deakin community award winners.
I am a proud son of Blacktown. I grew up there, was schooled there and bought my first home there. From time to time we have had people suggest our city change its name. But I have never been ashamed of the name of our city—a place that gave me such a great start to life. Recently Blacktown's Liberal councillors floated renaming Blacktown the 'City of West Sydney'—a ridiculous idea that would wash out our identity within a region of nearly two million people. The only thing we would get for being called the City of West Sydney is being known as the city with the dumbest name in the nation.
What intrigues me about the Blacktown name change debate is timing. Timing is everything. Why are Liberal councillors pushing for a name change right now? Surely it would not have anything to do with say, an upcoming mayoral election—one that hinges on the balance-of-power vote of an independent councillor who happens to have wanted a name change for years! If that is the case, then this is nothing more than a clumsy, shabby, disgraceful vote-grabbing exercise, deliberately provoking further questions about our city's standing and self-image within the broader Sydney area. It also impugns the motivations of an independent councillor I have a lot of time for. I do not mind genuine debate, but no-one likes stunts motivated by craven politicking. An issue as important as this should not be captive to that. The bottom line is that I and many others are proud to say we are Blacktown through and through. Why isn't the Liberal Party proud to say the same thing?
The Wollondilly area in my electorate is a hive of activity. Sitting on the edge of Sydney, this area faces fantastic growth opportunities with the development of the Badgerys Creek airport, the plans for a new town at Wilton Junction, and the fast-tracking of telecommunications infrastructure to the area. Wollondilly is a winner in round 1 of the government's Mobile Black Spot Programme. Four new towers will be built, at Mount Hunter, Nattai, Werombi and Buxton. These towers will extend hand-held or antenna coverage into other areas including Belimbla Park, Lakesland, Pheasants Nest, Picton, Razorback, The Oaks, Theresa Park, Thirlmere, Wilton, and along the Picton Road between Picton and the Fire Road intersection.
This is absolutely fantastic news, which has been welcomed by the Wollondilly Shire Council, local small businesses, and emergency services. Werombi plant nursery owner, Germaine Borg from Choice Seedlings, said her customers and staff were becoming increasingly frustrated with no mobile reception. Germaine said: 'A mobile tower will mean enormous reassurance for our business.' The Southern Highlands RFS regional commander, Ashley Frank, said better mobile reception would be a significant advancement for local emergency services. Ashley said: 'I want to thank Angus and the government for putting this kind of support into our community.' Thanks to this government, mobile phone coverage will be dramatically improved across vast areas of Wollondilly.
Deputy Speaker, I am proud to say I was born in Blacktown. I am proud to say I live in the City of Blacktown. My time as a councillor and deputy mayor gave me a deep appreciation for the institution of local government and for the importance of client service in public office. Rather than this perennial and ridiculous notion about changing the name of our city, it would be refreshing if the Liberals on Blacktown council were instead focused on providing some semblance of service to the priorities of their ratepayers. Where were they when their federal counterparts cut $6.7 million in Federal Assistance Grants to Blacktown council? How about Blacktown Community Aid—shut down after 41 years because it was defunded under the Abbott government? Or the $9.5 million in funds under Labor towards Blacktown's regional tennis facility—now gone under this government? And which suburb has been worst hit by the combined impact of this government's two budgets? It is Mount Druitt, in Blacktown city, where households are set for an average household loss of $1,066.
I note this directionless Abbott government wants to try and refocus on a jobs narrative. In Blacktown, the youth unemployment rate for July was 19.1 per cent—that is six per cent above the national average. Where were the Liberal councillors protesting the abolition by this government of successful local employment services transitioning young people to work, including the School Business Community Partnership Brokers Programme? The Liberals on Blacktown council are lions when it comes to changing the city's name but lambs when it comes to sticking up for ratepayers. I call on all Blacktown residents to contact their Liberal councillors and tell them it is not on.
It is with great news that I rise today and tell the House that we are going to get 12 new or upgraded mobile base stations in the electorate of Wannon. In particular, we are going to get them at Moonambel, Landsborough, Victoria Valley, and Mirranatwa. This is great news for those communities. It follows the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Telecommunications, Paul Fletcher, visiting each and every one of those four communities and hearing from them about their need for mobile reception—how important it is because they are tourism regions; how important it is because, being rural regions, they are vulnerable to bushfires. They made a compelling case to the parliamentary secretary. I was there for each one of those local community meetings, and I said to those communities that I would fight alongside them to make sure that we got mobile reception in those four locations. So it is with absolute pride and joy that I stand here today in the full knowledge that we will now see mobile phone stations rolled out in Moonambel, Landsborough, Victoria Valley and Mirranatwa which will deliver for those communities, which will make them good regional areas for tourism, and which will ensure they are safe from bushfires.
On behalf of our community, I wish to congratulate and thank the officers and staff of the Eastern Beaches Police Local Area Command who hosted a masquerade ball on Saturday evening to raise money for NSW Police Legacy and Eastern Suburbs PCYC: 350 members of our community came together at the Australian Turf Club at Randwick racecourse to support these two very worthwhile charities. Police Legacy provides support for families of police officers, particularly those who have been injured or killed in the line of duty, and the PCYC at Daceyville does great work providing support for kids at risk in our community. They were fundraising for a new bus, and I am pleased to announce that they will get their new bus after $85,000 was raised on the evening. It was great to see so many community organisations, like local pubs and clubs, both Randwick and Botany city councils, and business and community groups, come together for this very important event. The MC was Mike Whitney; celebrity auctioneers included Simon Poidevin, Kristina Keneally, and the Rabbitohs' Michael Maguire and Keith McGraw. Special thanks go to Detective Superintendent Gavin Dengate, our local area commander who organised the event and who has done a great job leading the police in our community—and we have seen a marked reduction in crime rates—and also to the members of his committee, Stacey Maloney, Sharon Frawley, Lauren Kelly, Cindy Northam, Brad Ross and Rob Townsend. On behalf of our community: thank you for your hard work and for the great work that you do in keeping our community safe.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise an outstanding resident from Forde who is heading to Brazil this month to represent Australia at the 43rd WorldSkills Competition. Mundoolun electrician and former Park Ridge State High School student, Luke Schaenzel, has been selected as a member of the 2015 Skillaroos in the Manufacturing Team Challenge category. I had the opportunity to catch up with Luke recently, and he is an outstanding young man who has put many hours of hard work and commitment into this competition. He is part of a team of three, and their challenge is to build a forklift that can perform a number of functions. The challenge is over 22 hours over three days and, on the fourth day, they have to test out the forklift's abilities with an obstacle course.
Luke tells me that he has been meeting with his team every fortnight, and his employer has been very supportive of his involvement with the Skillaroos. Their intense training regime in the lead-up to the competition will not only help the Skillaroos vie for the title of world champion in their chosen profession but will further refine and develop their trade and technical skills. Luke and his other team members have been working closely with their trainers, employers and mentors to ensure they are equipped with the skills and confidence necessary to compete against competitors from across the world, and he has high hopes of bringing home a medal for Australia.
In a month's time, the people of Canning will have the opportunity to pass judgement on the Abbott government and let Tony Abbott know whether or not they agree with his assessment that he has had two great years in government. It does not look all that great from WA. There is no jobs plan to help us deal with the winding back of the commodities boom. In fact, the reverse is the case. We lost almost 1,000 jobs as a result of the wrecking ball that he put through the renewable energy industry.
The residents of Canning really 'get' renewables. In fact, the rooftops of Canning are ablaze with solar PV and hot water systems. About 49.8 per cent of dwellings have these—one of the highest rates in the country. They have embraced this technology. They want cheaper power, they want to do their bit for the environment and they want a 21st century industry in WA.
Canning residents will also note that WA seems to have been cheated out of a fair crack at building the new generation of offshore patrol vessels. WA built the last 14 patrol boats, but now the PM has pre-empted an open and competitive process by committing the project to South Australia.
Labor will campaign on Western Australian jobs and industry, on strategic infrastructure and on being real about climate change.
Barton residents have many things to be proud of: the proximity of the St George region to the Sydney CBD, the multitude of amenities in the area—including bike tracks, walkways, local beaches and picnic spots, excellent local schools and retail services—and, importantly, closeness to important infrastructure such as the St George Hospital, St George Private Hospital and Calvary Hospital. These all make it a popular area for families.
Popularity means an increase in residents and visitors using local services. This is a wonderful thing, because I want my constituents to be proud of the area they live in and utilise local services. The downside is that, at times, parking can be difficult, especially around Kogarah, where there are two major hospitals as well as various ancillary medical services. This means that residents do not always get a park when they need it. During the parliamentary break, when I doorknocked residents' homes, this was a constant issue that many wanted to raise with me. They want to utilise local shops and support local businesses, but a lack of parking is a factor that will drive them to shop elsewhere.
I am very pleased to announce that, after negotiations with Kogarah City Council and TAFE New South Wales and working with the member for Oatley, Mark Coure, starting next month there will be more parking opportunities in Kogarah CBD. Parking will be available in the TAFE owned parking lot on the corner of Montgomery and Kensington streets in Kogarah on weekends and holidays. Whilst this is not the only solution to this issue, it is a critical step and a welcome decision that will alleviate stress for commuters in the area. I look forward to continuing to find more solutions for Barton residents.
The Abbott government's recent, vague announcement in Adelaide that work on the offshore patrol vessels and the Future Frigate Program would be brought forward to 2018 and 2020 respectively and would be initially centred around Adelaide appears to be yet another political stunt. Firstly, 2018 is still three years away and well after the next election. Secondly, it seems that the jobs of naval shipbuilders at shipyards in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia are being sacrificed to temporarily shore up the political stocks of federal South Australian MPs and senators. Thirdly, the replacement submarine contract which South Australians were promised before the 2013 election remains in limbo.
Even if work starts in 2018, it means at least a five-year lag between the Abbott government being elected and construction commencing. Australian shipyards need work now. Naval shipbuilders are already in the valley of death, with workers being laid off around the country and skills being lost. Blaming the previous government does not justify the Abbott government's own procrastination and mishandling of Australia's naval fleet building. The Abbott government should stop hiding behind a naval white paper, which it appeared to ignore with the frigates announcement recently, should build the supply vessels in Australia rather than send them offshore, as it proposes to do, and should keep its promise to build the submarines here in Australia—in particular, in Adelaide.
Today I would like to bring attention to a very special organisation in Bonner. The EACH social activity club has made a huge difference to the lives of a number of people in Wynnum and surrounding areas. Just recently I had the pleasure of having afternoon tea with members of the group. It was great to catch up with everyone and hear members' stories about how EACH has changed their lives for the better.
EACH is a fully federally funded program that has provided vital social and community health services across Australia for over 40 years. The EACH activity club opened in Wynnum just one year ago, and already it has grown to around 150 members. These members can choose from 16 activities a week, including aqua therapy, gentle gym, gardening and book club, and can take part in day trips as well.
EACH not only provides valuable social support to older Australians in our community but also expands their networking opportunities. Two people at EACH Wynnum were able to set up their own businesses through partnerships built by the club. EACH Wynnum has partnered with local services including the local PCYC and Meals on Wheels to enhance the services on offer to its members.
I want to thank coordinator Tracey Slater and everyone at the club for their lovely hospitality to me and for the wonderful service that they provide to vulnerable people in my electorate. I am pleased to report more people are taking part in EACH's club activities every day. I look forward to— (Time expired)
One of the things that I love about my multicultural community is the way we are linked through our people with some of the great events that have shaped the modern world. We have from our neighbours and people who go to school with our children some of the wisdom and understanding that flows from being there at some of those events that most of us read about in the history books.
On Saturday, a group of Australians of Indian background came together to commemorate one of those events: the independence of India from the British Empire on 15 August 1947. On that day, many years ago, the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, raised the Indian national flag above the Lahori Gate of the Red Fort in Delhi. Each year since then on the anniversary of that day, the Prime Minister of India raises a flag and gives a speech. There were many Australians of Indian background who were wearing the Indian flag on Saturday. I was not; I did get hennaed for the day.
I want to share with the House some of the words of that first Prime Minister. He said:
Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we will redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance … We end today a period of ill fortune, and India discovers herself again.
Happy Independence Day, India, our friend.
The Master Builders' awards may well have been held in Hobart on Saturday night, but the winners were from the north-west and the electorate of Braddon. How those Hobartians are feeling today, I am not sure! Those from the north-west have been rightly recognised for striving for excellence and producing stunning homes and commercial buildings. There are businesses like Mead Con, which took out the heritage listed or period building project award for its magnificent work on the iconic Pumphouse Point; Fairbrother Construction, which won the new construction of over $50 million award for the magnificent new Lion cheese factory plant in Burnie; Robert Rimmelzwaan and R&D Homes won the dwelling construction over $1 million award; Davies Construction won the dwelling constructions between $250,000 and $350,000 award; and JPO Building Contractors' Jason Overton won the excellence in medium density award. By the way, that particular company has done work for me and they are an excellent company. Fairbrother also took out the commercial builder of the year award.
What is the most notable here, apart from the superior workmanship and excellence in the projects themselves, is that while the businesses may be based on the north-west, the projects are from throughout the state and in many cases they are buildings on the mainland. No doubt, the large construction businesses in the Hobart would like to see their own winning these awards. These people engender everything north-west businesses seek to achieve.
Last month, I had the great pleasure of recognising some of Newcastle's most dedicated volunteers at the 2015 Newcastle Volunteer Service Awards. These awards are a terrific way for the Newcastle community to stop and take time to properly recognise the enormous contribution that volunteers make to our community. Volunteers are often the first to downplay the significance of their work, even though they play such an important role in so many of our organisations.
Award winners came from a wide range of groups, including the Hunter Region Botanic Gardens, Alzheimer's Australia's Hunter division, the Grainery Care Centre and the 2322 Men's Shed, just to name a few. Hunter Surf Life Saving nominated 10 members from their dedicated teams from Cooks Hill, Merewether, Nobbys, Dixon Park, Stockton and Newcastle surf lifesaving clubs for an award.
The ceremony allowed me to thank our local surf lifesavers on behalf on the Newcastle community for keeping our beautiful beaches safe. Sandra Calland and Brent Withey were also recognised for their commitment to the community kitchen in Merewether. The Hunter Community Legal Centre nominated their legal volunteer team for the much needed free legal advice assistance that they provide to those most in need.
Thank you to all the volunteers in our community for your tireless efforts and also big thank you to those organisations and individuals who took the time to nominate these volunteers for their extraordinarily selfless service in our community.
I rise to join the chorus of congratulations for our Aussie Diamonds netball team, who yesterday were triumphant winners over New Zealand at the World Cup final at the Sydney Olympic Park. This is the third-straight Netball World Cup crown for the Diamonds and their 11th overall. It is a fantastic achievement. I know the Diamonds are a real inspiration to thousands of Central Coast netballers, who hit the courts each weekend in my electorate. I am sure many of them would have been among the home crowd yesterday. Locally, our Gosford Netball Association, which has been around for more than 50 years, is thriving. Adcock Park in West Gosford is regularly packed out with local teams from right across our region.
This is not the only link that the Central Coast has with the Netball World Cup. The court surface they played on was actually designed and developed in Somersby by Shoreline Sports Floors. I went to visit Troy and Kylie Marquart and their team just last week. I saw firsthand how these specialised sprung timber floor systems work. Shoreline delivered two of these high-quality court floors for the tournament, including a portable timber floor. While I will not profess to be an expert on exactly how they work, they absolutely looked fantastic.
In another great achievement for this small business in my electorate, Shoreline has also secured a contract for the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast. This success is a great win for our local area, as Shoreline will need to employ more Central Coast locals to complete these works. It is a positive story from our region and caps off what is an outstanding achievement from the Diamonds.
It has been a wonderful 24 hours for Australian sport. A few hours ago, Jason Day broke a PGA record on the way to his first major. Yesterday, in a thrilling contest in Sydney, before a packed house of more than 16,000 fans, our Aussie Diamonds defeated the Silver Ferns to win their third consecutive Netball World Cup. Today, I salute the tactical smarts of coach Lisa Alexander, the inspirational leadership of captain Laura Geitz, the incredible accuracy of Caitlin Bassett and the courage of defender Julie Corletto, who in her last game for the Diamonds played through injury and pain to finish with a moon boot on her foot, icepacks on both knees and a third World Cup medal in her pocket.
Australia is a netball nation. At all levels and all ages, more than 1.2 million Australians play and tens of thousands more umpire, coach, wash the team bibs each week and, in my case, cheer from the sidelines. This triumph will inspire a new generation of Australian netballers. On behalf of all Australians, I congratulate the Diamonds. (Time expired)
Domestic violence and violence against women must not be tolerated in our community. We, as a community, must work together to combat this. I was proud to join the Zonta club in arranging a domestic violence forum last week in my electorate, which was attended by over 120 people from all walks of life. I would like to thank and acknowledge Cintra Amos and Anne Miller from the Zonta district for their outstanding efforts in supporting and promoting the event. I would also like to thank Erica Majba of Zonta and Maria Hagias from the Central Domestic Violence Service, who provided valuable information to those in attendance.
I was pleased to be joined by the guest speaker, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, and the South Australian Shadow Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Michelle Lensink. (Time expired)
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
On indulgence, I certainly join with the Leader of the Opposition, who has already spoken and may have a little more to add in a moment, to celebrate the extraordinary victory of the Diamonds over the weekend.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
It is often said that women's sport does not get the attention that it deserves. I have to say that in the Abbott household it certainly does get plenty of attention. My wife and daughters are netball tragics and, as is well known, I am a netball dad. Lately, there have been very few Abbott family discussions that have not involved the Diamonds and their prospects in the World Cup, which just concluded so magnificently for the Diamonds and for Australia in Sydney yesterday.
This is our 11th Netball World Cup win. Along with every member of this House, I am sure, I congratulate the Diamonds, magnificently led by Laura Geitz. As the Leader of the Opposition has just pointed out, Julie Corletto played through the game with a broken foot—an extraordinary exercise of courage, endurance, commitment, professionalism and strength. On behalf of our country, we congratulate the Diamonds.
I have to say that there have been a few disappointments in sport for us as a nation over the last few days, but the women have done us proud. As always, we can trust the women to do us proud in sport, as in so many other areas. I can inform the House that there will be a parliamentary reception for the Diamonds in this building on Thursday, as is appropriate for an Australian team that has won a World Cup.
Lest anyone think that I am neglecting male sport, I should also acknowledge Jason Day's great triumph in the US PGA Championship. Well done, Australian sport—but, particularly, well done, the Diamonds.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker, to continue what I was saying before about the accomplishments of the Australian Diamonds. Yesterday, 16,000 fans cheered the Australian Diamonds as they defeated the Silver Ferns. There are few rivalries more intense than the trans-Tasman rivalry. We know that New Zealand prides itself on two sports—rugby and netball—and I am pleased to see that Australia's elite netballers have been successful. These Australian netballers are role models and they are world champions. We have just found out in the last few minutes that not only are we seeing retirements of some players announced but Kimberlee Green has also announced her retirement.
It was a remarkable contest. Lisa Alexander, the coach, deserves credit for her smart tactical plays. Laura Geitz was an inspirational captain. Our goal shooters were incredibly accurate, including Caitlin Bassett, and, of course, Julie Corletto played heroically in defence.
Australia is a netball nation, but what is most pleasing is that these champions will inspire a new generation of Australian netballers. There is no doubt that elite women professional athletes have not received the equal treatment that they deserve in Australian sport. Famously, netballers were called the 'last great amateurs' a few years ago—not because of their amateur sport but because of their lack of fair remuneration when it came to playing sport. What we would say to Australia's women netballers is: 'You are elite professional athletes; you are strong, determined and dominant; you are Australian role models and you are world champions.' There is only one word to sum up Australia's Diamonds: brilliant.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
On further indulgence, Mr Speaker, I seek to acknowledge the 70th anniversary, on 15 August, of victory in the Pacific and the end of the Second World War. The Second World War changed our country and our world. Just 20 years after the horrors of the Great War, Australians again took up arms to fight the evils of Fascism, Nazism and militarism. Almost one million Australians, men and women, served in the Second World War and almost 40,000 died. To all of them we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.
The Australians who served did not just win the war. Along with all others who served in that dreadful conflict, they built a peace—a just and lasting peace. For all the problems of these days and for all the perils we face, these are the best times in human history, and that is largely due to the world that the men and women who served in the Second World War helped to create. They took to heart Churchill's dedication in his war memoirs:
In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.
Today, in this, our national parliament, we remember the men of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. We remember the campaigns in North Africa, in Syria, in Crete, in Greece, in Malaya, in New Guinea and in the other islands to our north. We honour the personnel of the Royal Australian Navy, who fought with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean, with the US in the Pacific and, particularly, at the Battle of the Coral Sea. We remember the Australians of the Royal Australian Air Force and we remember the Australians of the Royal Air Force, who suffered staggering losses, especially in Bomber Command. We acknowledge the 70,000 women who served in that conflict, including some 5,000 nurses. More than 70 Australian women died, including those murdered at Bangka Island and some who perished on board the Australian hospital ship Centaur.
On this anniversary of the war's end we remember the horror of the Holocaust, of man's inhumanity to man, and we rededicate ourselves to the great cause of peace. We acknowledge the sacrifice of those who died and we acknowledge the families who mourn them still. We acknowledge the suffering of those taken as prisoners of war and the mental and physical scars of those who made it home. We thank them for the free and democratic Australia that is their true legacy and we promise to strive to be worthy of their sacrifice.
on indulgence—Seventy years ago the war in the Pacific concluded. Unlike some of the other anniversaries this parliament has been acknowledging with the First World War, there are many Australians still alive from that time and many children and grandchildren who in our own lifetimes have spoken to the participants in that amazing struggle.
The war in the Pacific marks the end of what I think changed Australia's sense of its own security. With the war by Japan we saw war coming to our own shores and to our own communities in a way which we did not see with the conflict in Europe and North Africa. The war in the Pacific saw great horrors for Australian troops, from the fall of Singapore and the campaign in Malaya right through the Dutch East Indies to the conflict in Papua New Guinea, be it the Kokoda Track or the fierce battles at Milne Bay. It was a war at sea with our Navy and our merchant marine, it was a war in the air and, of course, it was a war on land. Australian troops and military forces fought with great valour throughout this conflict of the war in the Pacific, from the remarkable victories at Kokoda right through Papua New Guinea and South-East Asia. Indeed, our troops served in the occupation in Japan.
It was a war which brought conflict and bombing to Australian shores. It was a war which saw our foreign policy change forever as we moved from our reliance on Great Britain to the forging of our strong ties with the United States. It changed forever the way life was organised in our home communities, with many more women being absorbed into the workforce right through the decisions of financing and relations between state and federal governments. It was a remarkable challenge to re-absorb so many hundreds of thousands of returning Australian servicepeople into our economy. It also saw, I believe, the development of the generosity of the Australian spirit, with the over-time forgiveness of the conflict and atrocities which had happened to Australian prisoners of war.
Australian men and women came back from that war forever changed, and indeed their families were forever changed. As Prime Minister Curtin said at the opening of the War Memorial about all our servicemen:
These men were individuals fighting as a community, for something they understood and cherished, the right to rule themselves like civilised human beings.
He said:
Let it be Hitler's boast that every citizen is a soldier; it is our pride that every soldier is a citizen. In such a community it is right that the soldier and the statesman should be honoured together in the capital city of our democracy.
on indulgence—For the information of members, I propose that time for further statements on indulgence on the 70th anniversary of VP Day will be made available on a later day.
I advise the House that the Minister for the Environment will be absent until Thursday of this week as he is travelling to Papua New Guinea to conduct a series of bilateral meetings with ministerial counterparts. The Minister for Trade and Investment will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it the case that Dyson Heydon AC, QC after he had been appointed royal commissioner accepted an invitation to speak at an event knowing full well it was organised by the Liberal Party?
I am happy to do my best with that question, and let me at the outset say that this government fully supports the professionalism and the impartiality of Dyson Heydon QC and this government fully supports the necessity of the royal commission into trade union corruption. On the question of the professionalism and the impartiality of former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, let us never forget that this is a distinguished Australian who served with great integrity as a judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal for three years. He served with great integrity as a judge of the High Court for almost a decade. This is a man of extraordinary integrity who, as was pointed out by someone who is no great friend of this government, Julian Burnside QC—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Chifley is warned.
Dyson Heydon is a man of honour and, on the subject that was raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, after Mr Heydon became aware that it was a Liberal badged event, he withdrew.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a).
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
If I may say so, my understanding is that there is likely to be an application before the royal commission later today, and it would be inappropriate for members of this House to offer any further comment on this matter.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan to strengthen the Australian economy and create opportunity in my home state of Queensland?
I do thank the member for Capricornia for her question. I can assure her that every day this government is focused on jobs, growth and community safety. We took a plan to the last election to create a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. We took a plan to the last election to back hardworking Australians, and that is what we have been doing every day since.
Our plan meant scrapping the carbon tax to make every household better off, on average, to the tune of $550 a year. Our plan involved scrapping the mining tax to make Australia, once more, a good place to invest. It involved building roads, because these are the muscles and sinews of a strong economy. It involved getting the budget back under control, and that is what is happening to the tune of a half a per cent of GDP every year. Our plan involved finalising three free trade agreements with our major trading partners.
I can assure the member for Capricornia and other members of this House that the plan is working. In the March quarter our economic growth was amongst the very highest in the developed world. In the March quarter our export volumes were up five per cent. That is the best result in 15 years. Services exports were up eight per cent. That is the best result in eight years. Construction was up almost five per cent. Bankruptcies are at record lows. Car sales are at record highs. Since the election our economy has created some 335,000 more jobs. I want to repeat that: since the election our economy has created some 335,000 new jobs, and with things like our northern development white paper there is hope for even better performance in the months and years to come, particularly in the—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will cease interjecting!
great electorate of Capricornia. Every day, this government is getting on with the job of doing the right thing by the workers of Australia with not just shipbuilding, fleet building, centred on Adelaide, that will create 2½ thousand jobs and an emissions reduction target, which is not just environmentally strong but economically responsible. What we cannot do is see major projects stopped, frustrated and delayed because of legal attrition.
I point to the Adani project, in the member's electorate. This will create 10,000 jobs. It will involve $21 billion of new investment. It will give power to 100 million people in India. For Queensland's sake, for our sake, for the world's sake, this project must be allowed to go ahead.
My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. He said: 'Once he became aware that it was a Liberal badged event he withdrew.' I also refer to the invitation issued today, which came exactly two months after the Prime Minister had announced the appointment of Dyson Heydon AC QC. The invitation carried the statement, 'I am chair of one of the lawyer branches of the Liberal Party New South Wales Division.' Will the Prime Minister correct the record?
Mr Speaker, on a point of order—
Those on my left will not interject. I want to hear the Leader of the House.
The Prime Minister indicated that he was prepared to answer the question he was by the Manager of Opposition Business. He had to do his best with it, he said. But this question offends the standing orders and the practice of the House on several levels.
Ms Macklin interjecting —
The member for Jagajaga will not interject.
It offends the convention that matters that are before the courts, as this one is, should not be canvassed. So it offends the sub judice rule. It, secondly, offends the standing orders, because what was in the mind of Dyson Heydon is not—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Wakefield! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Those opposite are interjecting. I cannot hear the Leader of the House. He is on a point of order and you will not commentate.
The second reason it offends the standing orders is because what was in the mind of Dyson Heydon is not something that is in the knowledge of a Prime Minister. Therefore he cannot answer this question. It also offends the standing orders because, under standing order 100(c)ii questions that are critical of the character of persons need to be in writing on the Notice Paper. So my suggestion to the Manager of Opposition Business is that if he wants to move a substantive motion, with respect to this matter, the government will entertain it because only through a substantive motion can he elucidate the issues that he wishes to elevate in the House today.
Mr Speaker, I have two matters on the point of order: in the first instance, there is ample precedent in practice that once a minister has gone down a particular line it is open to the House to question the veracity of what has been said in the parliament. The question does exactly that. Secondly, on the point of the government saying, 'Oh no, we can't talk about the royal commission,' it is arguably a little bit late for the Leader of the House to start making that. I simply ask that whatever ruling you make on sub judice be one that is applied equally throughout the House.
I thank the member for Watson. I made my position on sub judice very clear on Thursday, in respect of the member for Isaacs, who is not here, I notice. With respect to the Leader of the House's second point, the Prime Minister can only answer questions for matters for which he is responsible.
Opposition members interjecting—
You will not interject. I am not going to entertain interjections from those on my left. The Prime Minister can only answer questions for which he is responsible. The last question was skating very close—in fact, the Prime Minister could have chosen not to answer it. I am going to give the member for Watson the opportunity to rephrase it. I am not going to debate it any further but, at this point, the Prime Minister does not need to answer that question, because it is outside the standing orders. I will give the member for Watson the opportunity or we can move to the next question, if he wishes, and we will give him time to rephrase it.
I am happy to rephrase and I would ask, before we get further into question time, that you reflect on page 555 of practice, which carries the specific reference that I referred to in my point of order.
Okay. I would ask the member for Watson to—
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in this House that once he became aware that it was a Liberal badged event he withdrew. I also refer to the Prime Minister's media release, of 10 February, which announced the appointment of Dyson Heydon. I also refer to the invitation the Prime Minister was referring to in his previous answer, which states, 'I am the chair of one of the— (Time expired)
Opposition members interjecting—
I am not going to take interjections from my left. The member for Watson can resume his seat. The time limits on questions and answers are not advisory.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Throsby will not reflect on the chair. The member for Throsby is warned. I am going to move to the next question and then we will come back to the member for Watson, should he wish to rephrase it within the time limit. I call the member for Deakin.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline how the government is working to create a strong and prosperous economy, and what threats are there to the government's plans for jobs and growth?
I thank the honourable member for Deakin for the question. He knows, as we know and as the Australian people know, that in the last month 38,000 jobs were created in Australia—in just one month. In the month of July 38,000 new jobs were created in Australia. Under Labor it averaged 3,600 jobs per month. So more than 10 times the number of jobs have bee created in just one month compared to the average of the Labor Party, the so-called workers party—more like the unemployed party. We now have the fastest rate of jobs growth of the major developed economies. In particular, we have more than the United States, more than the United Kingdom and more than Canada. We have had faster jobs growth than any of the G7, who have been operating off a lower base. From our perspective some of the best numbers that came out of the unemployment numbers was the fact that female workforce participation is now at its highest level since World War II, since 70 years ago. As the Prime Minister said a little earlier, 335,000 new jobs have been created since we came to government. It is not an accident. Ultimately it is business that employs people. Government sets the agenda, government delivers on the agenda, and our economic plan, which is obviously still unfinished, is working. We are getting rid of the handbrake taxes—the carbon tax, the mining tax. And when we came to government there were 96 other announced but unlegislated tax changes and we have gone through those. We are rolling out the biggest infrastructure program in Australia's history. Our micro-economic reform that has been the game changer for the states is the asset recycling program, which has helped to deliver 165 registered cranes just in the Sydney CBD—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
and we have cranes and bulldozers operating right across the country. I am asked: what is the risk to this prosperity build? What is the risk to the green shoots that are now turning into spring shoots? I will tell you what the risk is, it is the Labor Party—the Labor Party that wants to bring back the carbon tax, the Labor Party that wants to bring back the mining tax, the Labor Party that made a mess of taxation reform and taxing government. And now they are making a mess of it in the Senate and they are making a mess of it in their own policies—as we will find out a bit more over the next few days. The only— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In an extraordinary statement today, Dyson Heydon AC QC has confirmed that he accepted an invitation to speak at a fundraiser knowing full well it was organised by—and I quote Mr Heydon—'one of the lawyer branches of the Liberal Party, of the New South Wales division'. Doesn't this make it clear that the royal commission has been politicised from the start and the Prime Minister should withdraw Mr Heydon's commission?
I would not accept without carefully checking the statement which has been put to the House by the Manager of Opposition Business. I would not accept without carefully checking because it would not surprise me if members opposite were determined to verbal people who deserve respect.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned.
Let me make it absolutely crystal clear that this government defends the professionalism and the impartiality of the honourable Dyson Heydon, a former judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, a former judge for almost a decade of the Australian High Court who has been said by no less a critic of this government then Julian Burnside to be 'a profoundly honourable man'. So not only do we support the impartiality and professionalism of former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, we also absolutely support the necessity of this royal commission into union corruption. Members opposite should be very careful about smearing a distinguished former judge in an attempt to cover up their betrayals of the workers. They should be very careful about smearing a former judge in an attempt to cover up the facts that are already speaking for themselves before that royal commission—because what is abundantly clear from what has been revealed at this royal commission on numerous occasions is that union officials ripped off the workers in order to help themselves.
For the benefit of the House, I seek leave to table the statement from Commissioner Heydon issued today. It is his statement.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Whistleblowers last week reported that up to eight people extensively spied on Senator Hanson-Young over three days, including in her hotel room. On June 11 you said allegations of spying were completely fanciful. But you have been silent since last week's revelations. Can you guarantee to the parliament that, in your portfolio area, no senator or MP has been spied on by government contractors under your government's watch?
I thank the honourable member for his question.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned. The minister will continue.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There have been allegations raised in relation to Senator Hanson-Young. I made some comments in response to that, and I made it very clear at the time that the government has been involved in no such activity. The government has not provided any direction or sanction toward any sort of spying on Senator Hanson-Young—or anybody else in this place, for that matter. There is a dispute, as I understand, between Wilson's, the contractor, and an employee. That issue remains ongoing. If there are allegations to be heard as part of the Senate inquiry, I am happy for those allegations to be investigated. But suggestions that somehow the government has been involved in some sort of spying activity are a nonsense.
The point that I make, otherwise, is that the government have been successful in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders, stopping people drowning at sea and removing children from detention, because we have had, as part of that program, regional processing centre arrangements. The regional processing centre on the sovereign territory of Nauru is, ultimately, the responsibility of the Nauruan government. Equally, it is the case in Manus that the PNG government has responsibility for the operations in the regional processing centre on Manus Island. The government provides financial support to enable those activities to take place.
I have made it very clear in the past that we expect people within the centres, both as detainees and as employees—in fact, domestically as well—will act within the law. I expect people to be treated with dignity inside the centres. If there are allegations to be made, they are to be properly investigated.
You said it was fanciful!
The member for Melbourne has asked his question. He will not interject.
If people have allegations to make, they should provide that information to the police, and the matters will be properly investigated.
The government have been successful in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders not only in relation to regional processing centre arrangements but also because we have been able to turn back boats where it has been safe to do so. Whilst the Greens would never acknowledge it, the fact that we have stopped the drownings at sea is one of the most significant achievements of this government. When the Labor Party were in government—and they were in government with the Greens—1,200 people drowned at sea.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting —
The member for Moreton has been warned—I remind him—as has the member for Wakefield.
We will not allow that mistake to be made again. When Labor and the Greens were in government last under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, 1,992 children found themselves in detention. We have reduced that number to closer to 100, with the intention to drag it to zero. I will not be lectured by the Greens and I will not be lectured by the Labor Party when it comes to border protection policy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that the government's landmark free trade agreement with China comes into force by the end of this year?
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.
I thank the member for his question and for his very strong efforts to inform the benefits of freer trade to businesses in his electorate. Of course, with his experience, the member fully understands the critical role that the trifecta of free trade agreements are playing, and will play, in delivering jobs in the post-mining-boom period.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.
The government is working hard to ensure this agreement takes effect and enters into force later this year, because we will see a double whammy of tariff cuts for our exporters—one before the end of the year and one in the first week of January 2016. This will result in, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars of extra benefit to businesses across Australia.
If the FTA is delayed beyond this year or worse, the cost will be absolutely enormous. The NFF advises that delay will cost rural communities about $300 million next year alone. Upon failure to ratify, the red-meat industry will see a cost of $100 million; dairy, $80 million; wine, $50 million; and grains, more than $43 million.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Charlton is warned.
The coal industry says that every week of delay will cost it about $4.6 million in extra tariff payments on thermal and coking coal. The Financial Services Council warns that if ChAFTA is stopped it will cost our economy more than $4 billion and 10,000 jobs in that sector alone by 2030—to answer those opposite. A new collective of New South Wales oyster farmers from Australia's oyster coast are in China at the present time exploring further export opportunities off the back of the 14 per cent tariff elimination to be delivered by the China FTA.
The stakes are very, very high for these businesses in this member's electorate and many others. ChAFTA will create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead. Yet, in an act of what can only be described as economic sabotage, the most militant elements of the union movement are trying to stop this agreement from coming into force by running a brutal, dishonest, anti-Chinese campaign. Clearly, it is designed to distract from the daily reports of the corruption in these unions. Let me see what was in the paper today. The next instalment: Brian Parker, the top construction union official in New South Wales, allegedly told a project manager at a school building that—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On both relevance and your previous ruling regarding the royal commission, this cannot possibly be relevant to the question.
I remind the minister to stick to the policy content of the question, and I will listen very carefully in the last 25 seconds.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have. This top CFMEU official, who is saying that illegal immigrant workers—Chinese—are on building sites, is now facing cases before the courts, along with the union itself—because they are lying in this situation— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In an extraordinary statement today, Dyson Heydon AC QC not only confirmed that he agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser over a year ago, while he was the head of the Prime Minister's royal commission, but recommitted to the fundraiser in March this year.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Prime Minister, doesn't this make it clear that this royal commission has been politicised from the start and that Mr Heydon's commission should be withdrawn?
Mr Speaker, a point of order: the question contains argument portrayed as facts that are factually wrong. It is not possible for the member to pretend that the royal commissioner has said something that he has not said and base his question on a false statement. For that reason, either the question has to be rearranged and come back to, or it needs to be struck out as being outside the standing orders. The statement that has been attributed to the royal commissioner is not factually true.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Throsby is warned, I remind him.
I made an assertion based on facts and based on the statement by Dyson Heydon himself this morning, and I am willing to table that statement to substantiate the assertion in the question.
Yet again, members opposite are seeking to verbal the royal commissioner. In asking that question, the member made a statement about the royal commissioner's statement, which is simply false. In asking that question, he made a statement which is simply false. For the benefit of the member, who may well have just been handed a question that had been drafted by someone else, let me read from the transcript of Commissioner Dyson Heydon's statement earlier today:
The email of the 10th of April—
that is to say, 10 April 2014, the original email—
did not state and I did not understand from it that the Sir Garfield Address was in any sense a fundraiser for the Liberal Party. Mr Swan interjecting—
The member for Lilley will cease interjecting, especially since he keeps making the same interjection over and over again.
This is Dyson Heydon:
The email stated that it was organised by a body which I was told was 'one of the lawyer branches of the Liberal Party New South Wales division, which had a focus on … professional engagement …
So, it was not a fundraiser at all; it was a Liberal Party event organised by one of the lawyer branches of the Liberal Party New South Wales division—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga.
which had 'a focus on professional engagement'.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned.
It has never been disputed that this was a Liberal Party event. The claim of members opposite is that the royal commissioner knowingly accepted an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser. That is false. That is a false claim, and the member who asked the question—I presume inadvertently—did in fact mislead this House in the terms of the question he asked.
Mr Speaker, a point of order: the Prime Minister quoted from a document; I ask him to table that document.
The Prime Minister has a document that is marked 'confidential'. I call the member for Bass.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, as this is my first opportunity, I congratulate you on your well-deserved appointment as Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the 457 visa program in ensuring the provision of skilled workers to Australian businesses? Why is the integrity of this program so important? And how will it be maintained?
I thank the member for Bass for his question. It is true that the union bosses are involving themselves in a racist attack at the moment in relation to the free trade agreement between our country and China, but of course there is precedent for this. The unions have involved themselves in these xenophobic campaigns, these scare campaigns, trying to scare the Australian public into believing something that is not true in relation to visa programs. Take the 457 visa program, for example. We all know that this country has been built over many, many generations by skilled migrants who have come to this country—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a). He has been warned twice.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
and who have worked hard to make this country what it is today. The 457 visa program is one of those programs that, in a modern sense, allows people to come and work in our country where Australian workers cannot be found for a particular job. But of course there is an important integrity aspect to this program to make sure that employers do the right thing. I want to compliment the Assistant Minister for Immigration, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, for the work she has done in this area.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting. She is now warned.
Following the review, as part of the budget we announced some $3.7 million worth of funding to implement recommendations that came from the review to strengthen that program.
Mr Hawke interjecting—
The member for Mitchell will cease interjecting.
But imagine my surprise when I learnt that some of the key users, the key employer groups who were using this 457 program, were the same people who were out there publicly trashing it—that is, the union bosses. The union bosses are out there at the moment telling the Australian public that they should not support a free trade agreement between China and Australia, even though it will result in tens of thousands of Australians gaining employment and will add billions of dollars to the national economy. They are running this racist line out there, they are trashing the free trade agreement and they are trashing the 457 program. But, as it turns out, trade unions have sponsored 41 holders of 457 visas over the past five years, with several unions still acting as a sponsor today. It shows the hypocrisy that we see sitting opposite, bearing in mind that almost everybody sitting opposite us was a former union boss.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
The transport union's Tony Sheldon calls the 457 program 'a form of slavery', and yet his brothers and sisters in the United Voice, currently represented in this place by the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Corangamite, have no less than nine—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Sorry, the member for Corangamite would never support those crooks over there—my apology. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
When members are ready to resume question time.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, will you ask the minister to withdraw the slur that he made at the end of his appalling answer?
I am not sure what the member is referring to. It was pretty difficult to hear the minister. I did not hear what the minister was saying because people were ignoring my attempts to get them to cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Dyson Heydon AC, QC agreeing to be the keynote speaker at a Liberal Party event. Will the Prime Minister direct his ministers and the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party to release all relevant correspondence and documents from this sorry affair? Doesn't this show that Mr Heydon and Mr Heydon's commission should now be withdrawn?
My understanding is that the royal commissioner himself has released all relevant documents—
All documents?
My understanding is that all relevant documents are in the hands of counsel for the ACTU. My understanding is that it is likely that counsel for the ACTU will make an application to the commission later today. We are not talking about things that have happened before the commission; we are talking now about things that might happen before the commission. We are not talking about what happened in the past; we are talking about what might happen in the future. Speculating on what might happen in the future would be entirely inappropriate for any member of this House.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for Employment. Can you please update the House on the measures the government is introducing to restore the rule of law on building sites across Australia? What threats exist to the government's plan?
I thank the member for Ryan for her question. She, like members on this side of the House, actually cares about the real issues associated with building and construction sites in Australia and understands the reason why the government has moved in a number of ways to try and protect the rights of workers. She is not trying to trash the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, as the other side of the House is. In fact today the opposition had the opportunity to show that they were on the side of the workers rather than dodgy union officials by supporting the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation in the Senate, but they chose instead to oppose the ABCC. They have done that as recently as today. They also opposed the Registered Organisations Commission bill. Both of these measures would stand up for honest union officials and support the workers.
What we are seeing in this place today is an attempt by the opposition to trash the royal commission into trade union corruption, to attack the royal commissioner and to not see the rule of law restored on building and construction sites. Instead it is a transparent attempt to shut down scrutiny of trade union corruption. One must ask the question: why would the Leader of the Opposition—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth!
and the Labor Party not want the trade union royal commission to continue?
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth is warned!
The reasons are transparently obvious to me and to the Australian public. If the trade union royal commission had not been in place, we would not have known about the CFMEU's links to organised crime and to criminal bikie gangs. We would not have known that the AWU traded away the penalty rates of workers at Clean Event in exchange for cash and membership lists. We would not have known that the AWU—
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Perth on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, the minister is referring to a federally-convened royal commission as opposed to a state-convened royal commission. This has been the subject of a precedent. This is an important difference because there is a concern that the minister's statements might indeed be putting pressure on—
The member for Perth will resume her seat. I have heard enough of the point of order. The member for Perth might refer to my statement in response to the member for Isaacs last Thursday. I call the Leader of the House.
It is no surprise that the Labor Party wants to close down the trade union royal commission. Without that royal commission we would not have known that the AWU—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth is already warned.
made secret arrangements with Winslow Constructors in exchange for cash and lists disguised as safety training—training that was never delivered by the union or Winslow Constructors. We would not know that the AWU negotiated deals with Theiss John Holland for the exchange of $300,000 for industrial peace and on the other side of the coin got favourable treatment by the union. The Leader of the Opposition might never have disclosed the $40,000 of donations that his Maribyrnong campaign received in 2007 from the AWU—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin!
and from labour hire firm Unibilt. Of course the Labor Party is trying to destroy the royal commission, but we on this side of the House will continue to stand up for workers and will continue to stand up for honest union officials. Labor again have a spectacular own goal in bringing to the forefront of the political debate their tawdry association with the union movement.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's defence of Dyson Heydon AC, QC by repeatedly referring to comments by Julian Burnside QC. Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Burnside has said of Mr Heydon, 'I think an honourable person caught in that position would step aside'? Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and withdraw the commission of Dyson Heydon?
My understanding is that there is likely to be an application from the ACTU—
The member for Griffith is warned.
before the royal commission this afternoon. The appropriate place for the issues that the member opposite raises to be discussed and dealt with is before the royal commissioner. But I do want to say again in this House that the government does support the professionalism and the impartiality of the Hon. Justice Dyson Heydon. We do support his impartiality and his professionalism. Again I remind members opposite and, indeed, I remind everyone that this is a person who served with distinction and integrity as a judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal for more than three years; he served with distinction and integrity as a judge of the High Court of Australia for almost a decade. Let me further remind members opposite that the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption is necessary. It is necessary; it was called for, amongst others, by a former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Ian Cambridge, now a Fair Work Commissioner. It was called for, amongst others, by a serving Labor member of the Victorian parliament. It is important that we get to the bottom of incident after incident which we have seen before this royal commission of union officials who have been looking after themselves at the expense of the workers.
I know there is a bit of embarrassment on the part of members opposite because many of them have benefited from this. What we need now is a situation where unions—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
I have concluded my answer.
Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer update the House on the government's action to strengthen the economy? Are there risks to growth and creating new jobs that the government is determined to counter?
The member for Bendigo has been warned twice.
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and acknowledge his deep commitment to good economic policy in this place. The Australian economy is in the 25th consecutive year of economic growth. The March quarter GDP number of 0.9 per cent is one of the fastest in the developed world. Business confidence is at a two-year high. In the last 12 months we have seen job advertisements in 10 of those months increase. More than 330,000 new jobs have been created. We are seeing strong development in the building sector; export volumes are up; and retail sales are strong. We will continue on the path of good economic reform and in this year's well received budget we reduced the tax rates for small business to be among the lowest in the last four decades. Our three free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China will enable Australia to link into the burgeoning middle class in our region. Our more than $2 billion worth of red tape reductions will actually help businesses grow by getting government out of the way.
I am asked: are there any risks to this approach? Well, the greatest risk comes from the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition wants to re-introduce a carbon tax. He opposes a free trade agreement with our biggest trading partner; he opposes the re-instatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission; and he has more than a $50 billion black hole. The Leader of the Opposition believes that with these bad economic policies he can still deliver a budget surplus—a bit like the budget surplus he announced to constituents in Maribyrnong with this press release in 2012, where he said:
We have brought the budget back to surplus on time, as promised…
That is, despite an $18.8 billion deficit. You can still find this press release on his website.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to trick the Australian people into thinking he has a credible economic plan. We know he has a way with words and so he told the ABC news:
The trick with magicians is to make you look at the trick they're doing and not look at the real thing which they are pulling off away from what people are watching.
We know that the Leader of the Opposition is the David Copperfield of Australian politics because he made two prime ministers disappear, but the coalition—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Sydney.
will continue to grow the economy, create jobs and we will not let Labor get away with their old tricks.
My question is to the Prime Minister. An email from Gregory Burton, chair of the lawyers branch of the Liberal Party of New South Wales, of 10 April released by Mr Heydon today confirms that Mr Heydon was 'amenable to delivering the sixth annual Sir Garfield Barwick address in August 2015 if the commission has completed'. Prime Minister, does this not confirm that Mr Heydon was aware of the conflict well in advance?
I know members opposite are striving to find—
The member for Herbert. The member for Rankin is warned.
but I would urge them to read the full statement which Commissioner Heydon has made to the royal commission. Members opposite have it; it has obviously been made available to them I would urge them to read the whole statement and I would urge them to quote accurately and fairly from the whole statement. It is true that the royal commissioner was invited to address this gathering which was not a fund raiser—it was associated with the Liberal Party—
Opposition members interjecting—
To quote from the email he received in April last year: 'We organise forums on matters of professional and legal policy interest. Topics have included: bail, arbitration reform, PPSA, right to silence, workers comp reform, family provisions, revenue law and sentencing, et cetera. These to date have attracted high-quality presenters and enabled an engaged audience prepared to comment and participate.' The royal commissioner's statement went on to say that earlier this year he received contact by email from the coordinator while he was giving lectures in England. He says:
When I received the contact by email from the co-ordinator, I remembered that I had agreed to give the Garfield Barwick address in August 2015.
However, in March 2015, I overlooked the connection between the person or persons organising the event and the Liberal Party which had been stated in the email of 10 April, 2014.
I also overlooked the fact my agreement to speak at that time had been conditional on the work of the Commission being completed before that time.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor will cease interjecting,
The email?
The member for Jagajaga has been warned, and I remind her again.
He says, 'I overlooked the fact my agreement to speak at that time had been conditional on the work of the Commission being completed before that time.'
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). He has been warned twice.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
I ask members opposite to read the statement of the royal commissioner in full. If members opposite believe something untoward has happened, they should state precisely what that is and then we can deal with it.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House how the naval shipbuilding strategy announced by the government in Adelaide recently will help secure Australian shipbuilding jobs.
I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for his question and I commend his ongoing representation of the constituents of Hindmarsh and the people living in the suburbs of West Lakes to Ascot Park and in between. He is a strong advocate for their interests in this place. As the member says, the government's announcement on the future of surface shipbuilding in Australia has been widely welcomed throughout the country. I will give the House a few examples of that. The former Chief Executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Warren King, said this:
At its heart this decision by the government is the most profound and important announcement about this industry since Federation … outside of war.
Andrew Bellamy, the chief executive of the Austal shipbuilding firm based in Western Australia, said it was 'a truly transformative change,' and he went on to say it was 'a damn good piece of policy'—and this coming from one of the leading shipbuilders in Australia. In the honourable member's home state of South Australia, the head of the Defence Teaming Centre, Chris Burns, said of the announcement:
Now the Federal Government has shown leadership in making commitments towards a longer term plan …
He went on to say this is 'a significant vote of confidence in Australia's shipbuilding industry.' Why would he be saying that this is a significant vote of confidence in Australia's shipbuilding industry? For a number of reasons. Firstly, it gives certainty to shipbuilding as an industry in Australia—an industry which, I remind the House, had been completely abandoned by the Labor Party when they were in government. So firstly there is certainty for the shipbuilding industry. Secondly, it means a commitment of up to 2,500 long-term ongoing jobs right throughout Australia, many of which will be in the state of South Australia. Thirdly, it means certainty for Defence itself because we are bringing forward to 2018 the construction phase for the offshore patrol vessels and we are bringing forward to 2020 the construction of the future frigates. As I said, this is certainty for Defence. No wonder there was praise from none other than the Labor Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, who said it 'creates the continuity and jobs that workers in this state and around Australia want.' So the strategy is being praised by none other than the Labor Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill.
What did Mr Barnett have to say about it? He wasn't very happy.
The member for Perth has been warned.
So this is good for Defence, good for industry and good for the workers in Australia.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will leave under 94(a).
The only people who so far have not praised this are the Labor opposition here. (Time expired)
I have asked the member for Perth to leave under 94(a). She has been warned multiple times and continues to interject.
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How much is the Prime Minister's royal commissioner, the honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC, being paid?
It is unreasonable to expect ministers to have that sort of detail with them.
Opposition members interjecting—
I am going to conclude—
To be fair, he is hardly in charge.
The member for Batman will not reflect on the chair.
No, the Prime Minister.
I am going to call the Prime Minister, but he is quite within his rights to answer the question in general terms. I ask the member for Gorton to put the remainder of his question on notice.
This matter has been fully dealt with before Senate estimates, in accordance with longstanding precedent.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister inform the House of action the government is taking to tackle the menace of ice and the havoc it causes in our communities?
I thank the member for Page for his question. In recent years we have seen the creep of ice used across our country, and we know that individuals from all levels of our society are succumbing to its addictive nature. The Crime Commission estimates that up to 200,000 Australians have used ice within the past year, and it has therefore reached epidemic proportions. Driving this epidemic is organised crime. They fuel its use, its availability and its purity, and because of the unique nature of the Australian market organised criminal gangs from all over the world are attracted to coming here because of the high price that people pay for this drug. The government is committed to doing all it can to stop this by tightening existing laws, filling any legal loopholes and, most importantly, destroying and degrading the organised criminals that peddle in this misery. We are using every resource at our disposal to tackle this threat, and we have to work in conjunction with our state and local government colleagues to do all we can to stop it.
Our borders are the first line of our defence against ice, and when we came to government we provided an additional $88 million in border screening after years of Labor cuts to Customs. We provided $74 million for our law enforcement agencies, to send the Australian Federal Police, and Crime Commission and Taxation officers out to work side-by-side with their state and territory counterparts through the National Anti-Gangs Squad, and we continue to ensure that we are giving our law enforcement agencies what they need to tackle organised crime.
Last week, I joined the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection at the Australian Crime Commission to announce an additional $18 million of funding, from proceeds of crime, to enhance the Crime Commission's intelligence capabilities, particularly their capability to tackle organised criminals.
Yesterday the government launched a 'dob in a dealer' campaign, which will provide our law enforcement agencies with information from members of the public to assist them in busting drug manufacturers and distributors. We modelled this on the successful Crime Stoppers campaign that ran in Victoria.
Today, the Prime Minister, Minister Nash and I met with ACT Policing officers to see firsthand the response of law enforcement to illegal drug driving. Research shows that up to 13 per cent of road deaths in New South Wales are caused by people driving under the influence of drugs, and, in the ACT alone, positive hit rates for people driving under the influence of drugs have increased from one in 18 in 2013 to one in six last year—one in six.
Our commitment to improving intelligence in targeting criminals is resulting in unprecedented dividends, with seizures of this drug at an all-time high, but we need to make sure that our law enforcement agencies continue to have the support of their government to do everything they can to smash the criminals who peddle in this misery.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That:
(1) paragraph (2) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth be amended to read:
'(2) That the committee deliver its final report and recommendations on or before 15 October 2015;' and;
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and seeking its concurrence.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Mr Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate you on your ascension to the chair.
I rise today to discuss one of the most exciting and important elements of public policy. As members of the House know, changes in technology and the global economy are presenting both unprecedented opportunities and challenges for Australia. In this context, and during National Science Week, it is worth reflecting on the role of science in Australia.
Science reaches into every corner of our lives—in ways we instantly recognise such as medical advances, and in other ways that are more subtle, such as the technology in our smartphones and exercise trackers or the advanced nutritional yield from our crops. Science is critical for jobs, growth and business success. It underpins our nation's innovation capacity. This is important because today's innovation is tomorrow's industry and tomorrow's jobs. And we do have a track record of success to build on, including prominent examples such as the development of cochlear implants and, of course, the invention of wi-fi.
Australia's science policy, and its connection to industry policy, has never been more important. The Australians who work in our labs, in the field and in research hubs around the nation are truly the foot soldiers of the future. Our policy settings need to ensure that Australian businesses are given every opportunity to compete and to succeed.
Our focus is on creating an environment in which Australia can weather the inevitable winds of economic change. The only way we can do this is by ensuring we have a broad base of economic strengths and the capacity to develop more as new opportunities arise. To succeed and to guarantee our future prosperity we need to harness science and innovation for the national interest. We must get a bigger bang for our science dollar. We must use science and innovation to drive a dynamic, entrepreneurial start-up system to secure future growth and jobs.
Economy in transition
Australia's economy is in transition, just as economies are changing in other developed nations. Our traditional industries such as agriculture and manufacturing have served us well and they will continue to do so—but in new ways that capitalise on changing technologies and evolving markets. To ensure Australia continues to make the most of our global opportunities, we must take a collaborative and long-term perspective. This is essential to sustain Australian jobs growth and economic prosperity into the future.
Our goal is productivity growth, which will in turn secure Australia's economic growth and increased living standards. While our productivity performance has improved recently, the gap has widened between Australia and those countries at the productivity frontier, such as the United States.
The key to driving productivity growth is innovation. The OECD has shown that innovation accounts for around half of total economic growth. Innovation contributes to productivity performance through the creation of new knowledge and technologies and through the diffusion of new processes and technology to firms across the economy. Innovation activities, such as R&D, spread from individual firms to the wider economy and improve productivity by demonstrating the benefits or lowering the cost of a new technology, and by spreading knowledge. It is estimated that, for every $100 million invested by business in R&D, a return of $150 million to $200 million is generated to the economy.
Despite the importance of innovation to growth, Australia's innovation performance has been patchy. Australia's position in the evolving economy relies on a realignment of industry policy which is now focussed on facilitating the businesses of the future and supporting the entrepreneurial spirit of Australians.
We are not shunning our traditional industries. Rather, we are embracing them to ensure we play to our strengths in new ways, using new technologies and new ideas. At the moment, our businesses do not invest enough in R&D and are less likely than our competitors to create new and improved products. We need to focus on creating the right environment for innovative, globally focussed start-ups to succeed.
Australia has world-class education, training and research systems to generate innovation and commercial outcomes for Australia, but we are poor at translating research into commercial outcomes. Our SMEs rank 29th out of 30 OECD countries on innovation collaboration between industry and research. Our large firms rank 30th. We must do better. We will do better.
Putting science to work in the national interest
We have the talent, the infrastructure and the support. Our challenge is to assemble these blocks and put science to work in the national interest. That is why science, research and innovation are now at the centre of industry policy. The Australian government has set out a clear pathway to ensure our nation's best researchers and our nation's most productive industries can work to mutual advantage.
Our pre-eminent science organisation, CSIRO, is at the heart of this process to ensure our nation's most respected scientists can work alongside industry to further enhance our record on collaboration and commercialisation. We continue to invest substantially in science, research and innovation—$9.7 billion this year—to support:
This substantial investment shows that the Australian g overnment is committed to supporting science and research — but we also want to be sure that substantial public investment is delivering benefits for all Australians. That is why we are working to better utilise our publicly funded research agencies. Our world-class agencies will increasingly work in partnership with business to identify and develop the science to address industry problems. The CSIRO, for example, is refocussing its commitment to building stronger connections with industry to encourage the application of research, especially where it drives improvements in Australia's economic competitiveness.
The expertise and infrastructure of our national science agency can be invaluable for industries and businesses. To cite one case study—the CSIRO and partners have seen an opportunity to further improve Australian seafood, boost the aquaculture industry and deliver improved, high-quality products to consumers. As a result of this collaboration with industry, there has been an estimated increase in the Australian farmed prawn industry's production from 5,000 tonnes to 12,500 tonnes per annum. The value of the industry will increase by $120 million per annum by 2020.
As we look to the future and focus on using science to create new opportunities for our nation we are developing a comprehensive science policy that will be underpinned by a strategy for a science nation: an Australia in which scientific thinking, and science in action, can be found in all sectors of our economy. A coherent national plan will maximise our separate contributions to the infrastructure, skills, human networks and entrepreneurial culture that underpin our science base and our economy.
We need a plan for the long-term — not a plan for a year or two. And a sustained approach needs our collective energy and goodwill that crosses the political divide. In taking this long-term outlook, I emphasise the importance of a bipartisan approach to industry and science policy so that the decisions we make today—whether they are in STEM, investment in research infrastructure or ways to boost our ability to commercialise research—can benefit Australia for decades to come.
It is important to get this right and, over the course of the last two years, we have been assembling the building blocks that will collectively form our national approach. We have reviewed the CRC program to ensure that it is the engine of innovative research to support the work of the new industry growth centres. We have consulted widely to develop ways to boost our national science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) capability. We are implementing new measures to boost the commercial returns from Australia's research. We have established national science and research priorities and identified associated practical challenges and are now examining closely the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant research capability. And we are finalising a review of how we can take a new approach to the funding of national research infrastructure. On the basis of these building blocks, we are building a science platform for Australia's future.
What we are doing — industry programs/initiatives
This government does not just talk about what might be done to bring science to industry. Internationally, countries with strong innovation cultures tend to exhibit high levels of cooperation between research and industry. The Australian government is building a culture of entrepreneurship through changes to employee share schemes, encouraging investment in innovative Australian businesses through reforms to the significant investor visa and regulatory reforms to facilitate access to crowd source equity funding. But there is still work to be done to lift the entrepreneurial culture of Australia.
Our Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda sets out a new paradigm for industry policy with an emphasis on science to foster innovation and research. It has put practical measures in place to bring cutting-edge science and technology to Australian businesses. The Manufacturing Transition Programme is just one example. It is helping businesses transition into the new economy. Take Romar Engineering, which will use its $1.6 million grant from the Manufacturing Transition Programme towards a $6.6 million projectto develop and expand its advanced plastic and silicone moulding production to produce more complex and higher value added components for the electronics and medical devices industry. And the results are worth striving for—high value, high technology and high paid jobs.
Of course this is not just about grants from the government. We are moving away from the old model of industry assistance, to instead focus on supporting Australia's innovation potential by creating an environment that allows our firms to back themselves. Australia's best opportunities will come through playing to our strengths. Government has a key role in bringing the players together to set the strategic direction for their sectors and to get them to collaborate and to expedite the translation of breakthroughs in the lab or in the field to the global marketplace. That is what our Industry Growth Centres are about. These centres are the central element of the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda. Growth centres will be vital to boosting collaboration between industry and science. Each growth centre will set a 10-year strategy. They will help Australian firms link to global supply chains so we can export our innovations—not our innovators.
Exports associated with advanced physical and mathematical science activities are becoming increasingly important, and are currently worth around $74 billion. This is almost a quarter of Australia's total exports. CRCs will be the engine room of innovative research, supporting the work of the growth centres to drive productivity and competitiveness. Each growth centre will identify the research and technology gaps and priorities. They will ensure the science and research community knows industry's needs and commercialisation opportunities. This will improve the translation of research into commercial outcomes and better capitalise on Australia's large investment in science and research.
We are also encouraging businesses to innovate by providing the R&D Tax Incentive for eligible R&D investments and will ensure, through the tax white paper, that this $2.9 billion per annum initiative operates effectively and efficiently. And we are promoting entrepreneurship through the Entrepreneurs' Programme which helps firms with advice, business reviews and limited financial support for employing researchers and to commercialise new ideas.
This government appreciates that reducing the time from invention to drawing board to market is critical. That is why we have the Accelerating Commercialisation element of the Entrepreneurs' Programme. I recently announced $33.6 million in matched Accelerating Commercialisation funding to help 31 innovative Australian businesses turn their inventions into commercial realities. Smart Steel Systems Pty Ltd, of Yatala in Queensland, has developed a fully automated steel fabrication system, which has the potential to generate major productivity benefits for the industry. Accelerating Commercialisation support will be used to complete the final pre-production development and trial phase, with the outcome being a fully operational state-of-the-art commercial production facility. Air Tip, of Alice Springs, has developed an innovative air powered side-tipper trailer to replace the traditional oil hydraulic powered side-tippers for the mining and transport sectors. This solution will increase payload capacity, improve operation and commercial efficiencies, reduce environmental footprint and enhance employee safety. Accelerating Commercialisation support will be used to assist Air Tip commercialise this product both domestically and globally.
These are examples of businesses that in coming years will drive growth, create jobs and build prosperity. They are innovative and this innovation is underpinned by skills in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM. They are just some of our entrepreneurs who are turning good ideas into innovative products that we can market to the rest of the world. In fact, around 760,000 jobs in Australia are directly related to the advanced physical and mathematical sciences. In the last five years around 70,000 jobs have been created to work in advanced physical and mathematical sciences. So these companies are just the tip of the iceberg.
We are focussed on replicating their success on a much broader scale. We have the plans and programmes in place to support this expansion. For example, the National Energy Productivity Plan will require innovative efforts and the development and application of new technologies from businesses and governments in delivering more efficient, lower cost energy services for consumers. This can also lead to new export opportunities for Australian businesses. This means leveraging our world-class research system, our creativity and inventiveness to support new innovative businesses. It also means encouraging our entrepreneurs. As I said earlier, we will harness science, research and innovation for the national interest.
Conclusion
Professor Suzanne Cory, one of the world ' s most distinguished scientists, said of scientific discovery: 'It's the excitement of being on the frontier.' I finish today by reminding the House that in placing science in the engine room of national productivity, from the lab to the global marketplace, we are entering a new frontier for Australia. This new frontier is not something that should unnerve us. Rather it is an opportunity that we should grasp. And we are doing just that. Australia has an unprecedented opportunity to align industry, universities, the research sector and the science community to turn great ideas and breakthroughs into great leaps forward for business, for industry, for local communities and for every Australian.
Scientists often work on long-term goals, patiently letting years of research finally deliver results that literally change lives for the better. That work should continue. But at the same time, we are acting now—through collaboration and innovation. The Australian government will continue to put in place the new framework for Australian industry—brick by brick. Our new structure is taking shape and I look forward to seeing our scientists and our innovators working with our entrepreneurs to create new local jobs and more global success.
I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister's statement. At the very outset, I want to thank the caucus for giving up 19 minutes of their lives! If I did not already, I owe all of you a big thankyou. I welcome the minister's statement. There was nothing particularly wrong with his speech. I accept that the minister and the member for McPherson at the table have the very best of personal intentions when it comes to science. But the test in this area is not words but actions.
When it comes to science there is only one party in this parliament which is truly committed to matching its words with actions—the Australian Labor Party. Labor believes that the promotion of science and technology will create and maintain jobs of the future in this country. Labor believes that research, innovation and a fundamental respect for scientific evidence are at the heart of Australia's future prosperity.
Innovation is not just important to new industries; it is essential for all industries, both emerging and mature. They need to update, compete and modernise. Labor do not accept the false distinction between new and old industries and the role of innovation. We believe innovation is the lifeblood of future prosperity. That is why it is front and centre of our economic plans and programs for the future. We believe Australia should be a science nation, competing with rest of the world and winning. We share a national commitment to science and to an Australia that nourishes the intellect of our people to build a smarter, more creative and more agile economy.
Science gives us a new and better sense of ourselves—new energy, new spirit and a new concept of our place in the world and our future. Science demands that we are self-critical, dissatisfied with the status quo, intent instead on moving towards a more prosperous future. Science is the enemy of dogma and it is an instrument of progress. Science lifts living standards and it frees us from ideology. Science will develop faster, more accurate and less invasive ways of diagnosing patients and of treating them. Science will redefine the very cities we live in and the way we work, learn, farm and live. Science will unlock future sources of energy and design new forms of communication. Science will reveal things about our planet's past that will change the way we understand our world and our universe. Above all, science and technology will be the difference between Australians designing, refining, operating and maintaining the machines of the future and being replaced by them.
No government can predict or dictate future discovery. Instead the parliament's responsibility is to foster a culture of ideas and of inquiry and to respect learning and knowledge. But, in less than 'two great years', this government has tried to cut $3 billion from science, research and innovation. It was not 'two great years'! We have seen: the CSIRO cut by $114 million; the Australian Research Council cut by $75 million; the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation cut by $27½ million; competitive research centres cut by $80 million; the Research Training Scheme cut by $173 million; and Commercialisation Australia abolished, with $260 million cut. The National ICT Australia Limited is to be abolished, with $84 million cut. We have seen Geoscience Australia cut by $16.1 million. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation has been cut by $120 million. And do not forget that notorious low point, earlier this year, when the Minister for Education and Training went to war with NCRIS, holding hostage $150 million in funding in an attempt to ram through his unfair plan for $100,000 degrees. Holding a political gun to the head of some of Australia's most eminent researchers—that was the fixer's fix. Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt summed this up perfectly when he said:
… this is not the way a grown-up country behaves.
Make no mistake: the science race—the race for the jobs of the future; the race to the top—has begun. It is a global contest where we should aim to be up there with the top players. Given Australia is a relatively small player, some might argue, 'Why do research here at all? Let's just import all the technology we need in the future.' The answer, though, is that Australia must be able to continue to produce the brilliant discoveries and technologies that directly benefit us. We must be able to adapt research done overseas. It is only countries with a strong research base that can effectively import science, build on it and adapt it for their own purposes. This is why we have set a great national goal, aspiring together—government, universities, research centres and industry—to dedicate three per cent of our national GDP to research and development by the end of the next decade.
Three in every four of the world's fastest growing occupations require STEM skills and knowledge. In the United States, 60 per cent of their 2020 workforce will require skills held by just 20 per cent of their current workforce. Australia is better placed, but not much better. In classrooms today, about 40 per cent of our teachers teaching science and maths to Australian students between years 7 and 10 do not have a tertiary qualification in that discipline. In our schools, participation in science subjects has fallen to the lowest in 20 years, and maths and science literacy has fallen over the past decade. Just as importantly, countries in our region continue to improve their results. The world is not waiting for Australia; it never has. We need to lift our game.
We need a new cooperative engagement with science, research and innovation. This is why Labor will work to ensure that every school teaches coding—computational thinking. This is not just about introducing a new subject. It is not about making 11-year-olds go out to work, as the Prime Minister said in a particularly famous answer he gave to a question about coding. It is about giving the next generation of Australians a whole new mindset and skills set. Labor will support better training for 25,000 current science, technology, engineering and maths teachers, because we want our hardworking teachers to have the skills and the confidence to help more students fall in love with science. We will create 25,000 new scholarships for STEM graduates to become great teachers, because we believe in what Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, calls sending the elevator back down—helping the next generation up. We will write off the student debts of 100,000 science, technology, engineering and maths students upon graduation, to encourage more Australians, particularly women, to have the opportunity to study, work and teach in these fields.
Labor's commitment to science travels right along the line—research, concept, discovery and product. It is true that Australia excels at discovery. In medical research, for example, we account for one per cent of the world's expenditure but produce three per cent of the world's output. Despite this success, we are second last in the OECD when it comes to research collaboration for small and medium enterprises, and we are last for large firms. We need to work together to bridge the divide between what our scientists discover and what our businesses use. We need to stop good ideas, unfulfilled breakthroughs and frustrated innovators falling into a void or—even worse—heading overseas. This means helping our businesses to harness good ideas and supporting our scientists to develop and deliver more of them. Labor will create a $500 million smart investment fund based on the proven success of the former Innovation Investment Fund, and we will establish a partial guarantee scheme, Startup Microfinance, to encourage crowd funding for new innovators. We want to ensure that great Australian ideas are born here, grow up here and create jobs here. In the 21st century, I believe that Australia can be a society of lifelong learning and innovation. With our remarkable open democratic culture and livable cities, we can be the new research centre of our region, the start-up capital of Asia and the science capital of the Asia-Pacific. It is time for us to seize this opportunity.
Science cannot be shunted away in one department nor viewed as a boutique industry for a niche market or an add-on to a title halfway through the first term of a government. Science needs a minister and a government that understand that it is the engine of productivity and jobs growth across all current, existing and future industries. Science will be at the centre of a Labor government, not just in words but in actions. Each year a Labor government that I lead will hold a cabinet meeting in cooperation with the Chief Scientist, the Commonwealth Science Council, the Australian Academy of Science and other relevant science sector representatives. We will break down the idea of an ivory tower. We will bring cabinet down from the hill and, together with scientists, really listen to each other and work with each other.
Whether we recognise it or not, science already pervades every aspect of our lives—every industry and every activity. We cannot separate the things that we dig out of the ground from science. Our resources sector is successful because it values and utilises science. In the future, this interdependence between science and everything that we rely on will continue to grow. Science will underwrite jobs in health, education, construction, ICT, mining and agriculture, as well as the jobs our children will do—in many cases, the jobs yet to be invented.
No conversation, discussion or statement about science—about our commitment to actions not words—could be concluded without testing a government's commitment to science. In particular, there is no clearer sign of commitment of a government to science than their willingness to adopt and use the evidence provided by science. Of course, I speak of climate change. You cannot claim to be seriously committed to science when you ignore the science of climate change. Labor take climate change seriously because we take science seriously. Just as science is essential to identifying the challenge of climate change, it is essential to developing the solution. That is why Labor are so disappointed in the announcements last week by the government.
Last week we learnt that the majority of the government's proposed emissions reductions will come from: an unspecified safety mechanism, an unknown energy efficiency plan and an unannounced vehicle efficiency policy; and there is a miscellaneous category called 'technology improvements and other sources'. The government say that they are banking on technology and innovation breakthroughs, yet the same government still intend to abolish ARENA, leaders in climate change and innovation. They have already tried to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and now they are trying to dictate its work in a most unscientific manner. They are cutting the funding for the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, and they are slashing money from every Australian university. You cannot say that you are committed to science if you ignore the evidence and shoot the messengers. Instead, all that this reflects is a Liberal Party stuck in the past, captive to a nostalgia that things are about as good as we can reasonably expect and that any change is likely to be a bad thing. Despite what they believe, the world will not stand still. Science is the way forward—the lifting of the productive capacity of our economy and our people.
Labor believe in a better approach to science: new cooperation with states and territories; new collaboration with industry, fostering a knowledge-based culture in our workforces; new programs in our schools, TAFEs and universities; new engagement with the community, students, parents, teachers, employers, entrepreneurs, small and big business alike, city businesses and farmers; and new international partnerships. I want the next election to be a contest for the future of science in this country. I want it to be about competing visions for science in our schools and for research, innovation and commercialisation. I want Australians to choose Labor, because Labor has chosen science.
In the foyer of the Australian War Memorial sits an old lifeboat. It has been part of the collection since it opened. Most visitors would have passed it. At first glance it is unremarkable. Yet it is one of the most iconic and tangible reminders of the Gallipoli campaign. For this steel lifeboat was one of the boats which participated in the landing at Anzac Cove. One hundred years ago, on 25 April, the first Anzacs were climbing down rope ladders from their transports. They made the last stage of the journey in rowing boats like that one. They did so orderly and quietly. It was pitch dark. The commander of one of the destroyers said to the Australians on the deck, 'Lights out, men, and stop talking; we're going in now.' Our official war historian, Charles Bean, described the scene: 'In the silent crowded boats the tension was extreme. Did the Turks suspect? Were they posted on those invisible hills and on the beaches? Would they detect the landing? Would they resist it in force? When would the first shot come?'
The 10th Battalion from South Australia was amongst the first to land. In the pre-dawn light they faced cliffs 200 feet above sea level and ground riddled with gullies. They carried heavy backpacks, with 200 rounds of ammunition, an entrenching tool, water and two days of rations. They ran across the shingle of the beach, took cover and began to climb.
Two South Australians, Private Arthur Blackburn and Private Phillip Robin, went further than anyone else and glimpsed their goal. Arthur Blackburn, a lawyer, later won the Victoria Cross at Pozieres in 1916 and served in the Second World War as Commander of Blackforce in Java, where he was captured and was a prisoner of war for 3½ years. The office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Adelaide is named Blackburn House in his honour. He lives on through his daughter, Margie Forbes, who I have known for more than 30 years, and his son-in-law, Dr Jim Forbes, a former federal member for Barker and also a Military Cross winner in the Second World War. Phillip Robin was an accountant who worked for the Bank of Adelaide. He played for Norwood and South Australia and won the 1907 reserves Magarey Medal for football. He was killed three days after the landing.
So who were these men? They joined as volunteers and trained at the Morphettville camp, which was erected on and around the racecourse. They undertook their training along the Glenelg and Brighton foreshores. They went for long marches to the Light Horse remount depot at O'Halloran Hill. They marched to Belair National Park and bivouacked there for two nights. They still behaved like any young men. A smile or wave from the nurses of the Adelaide Hospital who were visiting the camp was enough to distract them from their training.
After parading before the Governor at Parliament House on North Terrace, the proprietor of the Half-Way House on the Bay Road, Mr Tolley, supplied free beer to the parched troops. We know that establishment today as the Highway Inn, and the Bay Road was later renamed Anzac Highway in their honour. In two months they were transformed from civilians to soldiers.
So who were these men? They were teachers, blacksmiths, lawyers and shearers. They were drovers, accountants, railway men and labourers. They walked our streets. They were part of this community. Their names are on memorials and plaques all around Australia. We will not forget them. We will remember them. They are no longer with us, but they were us.
Anzac Day, including the Centenary of Anzac, has been embraced more and more by Australians over the last few years. It is, of course, very heartening that so many Australians wish to honour those who served during the First World War and in all too many instances never returned home. Along the way, these soldiers have in some ways been turned into figures from a story. We often hear it said that Gallipoli was the birth of our nation. Yes, these men are symbols. But we should also remember that they were more than that—they were just like you and me.
In my electorate of Boothby, my local community has been embracing Anzac Day services more and more over the last few years, with attendance numbers continuing to grow. For my part, I was very honoured to give the address at this year's dawn service at the Brighton Arch of Remembrance, where thousands of people turned out in the pre-dawn hours. The services I attended this year were cold, windy and, in the case of the Blackwood youth vigil, in the middle of a torrential downpour, but all of my electorate's local communities made a special effort this year.
I would like to congratulate the RSLs, the local councils and the many residents of my electorate for their efforts to commemorate this historic milestone. Leading the effort have been the local RSL sub-branches. Every year they work for months to make sure that the events of the First World War are properly commemorated and remembered. I would like to pay tribute to their efforts, not just in organising the commemorations but in all the work they do on behalf of our veterans.
Another way that my local community embraced the centenary was the huge response that we saw to the government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. It was particularly gratifying to see how many local schools were eager to participate in the program and incorporate the centenary into their activities over the year. While the RSLs and established commemorative groups were of course among the many recipients, of the 15 successful grant applicants, almost two-thirds were from local schools. This program really provided the community with the opportunity to create new and rejuvenated memorials to commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australian service men and women but also to commemorate the event in novel ways.
Successful applicants to the program included the Repat Foundation, the Brighton RSL, the Marion Historic Village Display Centre, the Blackwood RSL, the Rotary Club of Flagstaff Hill, the Colonel Light Gardens RSL, Aberfoyle Park High School, Brighton Secondary School, Westminster School, Blackwood High School, Aberfoyle Park Primary School, Scotch College, Flagstaff Hill R-7 School, Seacliff Primary School and Colonel Light Gardens Primary School.
The schools in particular have been very engaged and have come up with ideas that really involve the students and the school community. Some are constructing new memorials; others are staging plays or musical productions; others are collecting and displaying First World War memorabilia and using them as part of their curriculum. There are a couple I would like to briefly mention. One of the grants funded the dedication a brand-new war memorial at the Aberfoyle Park School's site, which I had the honour of attending. This memorial is particularly significant for this area of my electorate, as before then there was no existing memorial in the area commemorating the locals who served during the First World War. I would also like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of Anzac for making the time to attend that dedication. It was an important day for the students of Aberfoyle Park Primary School, and his presence showed them how much we appreciated their efforts to see this new memorial built.
A second project that had the selection committee quite excited was one which is currently underway by the students of Colonel Light Gardens Primary School. The Colonel Light Gardens Primary School is on the site of what was the Mitcham Army Camp, which was an important staging post for World War I soldiers before they embarked for overseas. The school is producing a 15-minute film about the First World War and the meaning of Anzac Day in a local context, as told and shown by the students. The younger students will undertake activities such as making and learning about the significance of poppies; re-enactments of army training; writing historical fiction or poetry; and artwork and models. Older students will research Gallipoli and other battles, and what it was like being a child, soldier, mother, doctor or nurse from the era, telling this from their subject's perspective and connecting it to local families where they can. These activities will be incorporated into the curriculum, and the end product will be a film featuring, researched and narrated by children, for children. Once finished, they plan to make it available to other primary schools as ongoing teaching resource.
These commemoration activities, as well as all of those taking place around our community, show that the memory of those who served—and those who continue to serve—will not be forgotten. The memory of our Anzacs continues strong, and I am confident that Australians will continue to remember their legacy—to the 150th anniversary, the 200th anniversary, and beyond. Lest we forget.
The Great War was the crucible that forged our nation. That is why the Centenary of Anzac is such a significant period of commemoration for all Australians. On 25 April, marking the official 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, residents of Leichhardt commemorated this significant time with a range of events and projects. Today I would like to take the time to acknowledge a whole range of people who have made an invaluable contribution in so many ways.
A key component of our Anzac Centenary commemorations has been the ability to support individual projects to the tune of $125,000 in total per electorate. In Leichhardt, we had a very capable local grants committee made up of Richard Stoker, a historian and archivist with the Douglas Shire Historical Society—and, interestingly enough, a direct descendant of the captain of one of our first submarines in the First World War, submarine HMAS AE2, which actually sank during that Gallipoli campaign; Jodie Duignan-George, then general manager of James Cook University; Jim Fay, the secretary and treasurer of the Cooktown RSL Sub Branch; Mr Phil Warwick, a committee member of the Cairns RSL Sub Branch; and Steven Brain, a councillor at Cairns Regional Council. The committee members took significant time out of their very busy schedules to read through the applications, to assess them against the criteria, to provide feedback at the committee meetings, and to make recommendations to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I would like to thank them very much for their efforts.
In terms of successful projects in Leichhardt, it was great to see a mix of traditional ideas and innovative concepts. I would particularly like to recognise the following people: Maureen Cameron, Head of Music at St Andrews Catholic College in Cairns—and Maureen was also the organiser of Catholic Education Services' Anzac Reflections production, a performance of music and verse which coincided with the installation of 13,000 perspex stakes on the lawns of the Bishop's House in Cairns, each stake with a personally written name and a reflection about World War I; Jim Fay and other committee members of the Cooktown RSL Sub Branch, who replaced the existing First World War memorial archway at Cooktown's Anzac Park, which was dangerously run-down; and Alisa McKinley and members of the Mother of Good Counsel School Parents and Friends Association, for establishing an Anzac Living Memorial Garden in the school grounds on Sheridan St. The garden will feature panels and artwork designed by the students and a memorial bench for quiet reflection.
I would also like to thank Pauline O'Keefe, a driving force at the Cairns Historical Society, who organised an exhibition titled Far North Queensland Remembers World War One in April 2014. I attended the opening night, and it was an excellent event which gave a real insight into life in Cairns during World War I, with restored photographs, memorabilia and performance art. Wally Grey and Ron Savage, secretary and president of the Mossman RSL Sub Branch, and other volunteers erected a beautiful memorial in the grounds of the Mossman RSL. Melanie Piddocke and Jacqui Collins-Herrmann from James Cook Museum in Cooktown organised a permanent exhibition recognising the activities and involvement of Cooktown residents in World War I—and I had the opportunity to visit the museum in April, and it was great to see some of the memorabilia that has been restored and researched and that will form part of that permanent exhibition. Naomi Warriner, the head of humanities at Trinity Anglican School, organised to borrow two World War I Memorial Box resources from the Australian War Memorial. This is the first time that Far North Queensland will have access to these resources, which will be hosted at the new Australian Armour & Artillery Museum in Smithfield—and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the founder, Rob Lowden, for taking on this role. These local projects will have a lasting impact and will be a reminder of this very important period for many, many years to come.
There are a number of other projects and accomplishments that I would like to acknowledge today. Bill Winfield, a long-time friend, is now involved with the Masonic Lodge in Gordonvale. The lodge had wanted to do something a little bit different, and so very generously organised for a performance of the play Private Ginger Mick at Gallipoli to come to Cairns—I am sure you would recall that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Jones, as he had organised that play to come from Townsville to Cairns. In conjunction with the play, Bill organised an essay competition for local school students, and I attended the presentation at the Cairns RSL sub-branch. Congratulations to Matisse Reed from St Monica's College, who won the competition, and to runners-up Soraya Houghton, Kiara Guest and Elizabeth Honnef, all from Gordonvale State High School.
The major art installation Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red at the Tower of London marked 100 years since the first full day of Britain's involvement in the First World War. Leslene Woodward is a former Cairns resident now living in London. She purchased one of the fundraising poppies and generously donated it to the Cairns RSL, so the Cairns community have their own piece of this internationally recognised event. Unfortunately, even though it was packaged very carefully, one of the petals broke in transit. Luckily, we have a fabulous local artist—Jennie Scott of the Cairns Art Society—who was able to carry out a wonderful repair job. I handed this beautiful poppy over to David Clifton, President of the Cairns RSL, and it will form part of a new display at that RSL.
I was certainly honoured to take part in the inaugural Anzac memorial walk retracing the enlistment drive of young men who walked from the Lions Den Hotel in Rossville to Cooktown. Congratulations again to Jim Fay, Secretary and Treasurer of the Cooktown RSL sub-branch, the other organisers, my teammates from the Cooktown RSL team, and the management and staff of the Lions Den Hotel, who hosted us on Friday night and cooked up a 'breakfast of champions' on Saturday morning. Two of my wonderful staff—Heather Beck and Karen—were also on that walk; they came with me and it was great to have both of them on board. They walked the whole distance, which was about 20-something kilometres. I have to concede I did not quite make that distance; I had problems with my shoes. Nevertheless, I was there at the start and well and truly there at the finish. It was very poignant to have a photograph pinned to my shirt in memory of a serviceman from the Cooktown area. I certainly hope to see that event repeated in the future. It was very successful and very well supported.
On Anzac Day, I again marched behind the RAAF banner in Cairns and attended the Anzac Day service at Fogarty Park. This year, I helped the regional council bring a Turkish armed forces representative, Colonel Ozkan Ulutas, to Cairns for the event. He was one of only three Turkish armed forces personnel who came to Australia, and he recited Ataturk's commitment that is inscribed on the Anzac Cove memorial, which was amazing. It was phenomenal to have him standing there at the podium, reciting Ataturk's declaration; it certainly added to the event.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Cairns Sikh community, who walked around handing out bottles of cold water—a great relief in the hot sun. They distributed pamphlets outlining a lot of the work that was done by the Sikhs then. Of course, they were very much part of supporting us during that time of need.
I went to the Torres Strait, and I was honoured to present one of our last surviving members of the Torres Strait Light Infantry—Mr Mebai Warusam—with his service medals. It was just great. He is 91 years old. He was part of the Torres Strait Light Infantry. It was important that we were able to offer support to him.
In no way should the Centenary of Anzac glorify war, but it should recognise what is best in the human spirit and what is noblest in our human character and acknowledge that the worst of times can bring out the best in us. From now until 2018, I urge everyone to find out about the events, marches and services that are taking place in our communities and seize this opportunity, as it will be unique in our country's history.
A hundred years ago the world witnessed our young nation's bloody baptism at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli. The Anzac spirit was born in the tragedy of war. Ever since that day, the heroic displays of selfless courage by the Australian and New Zealand soldiers in that desolate place have been a source of pride for both nations and have rightly passed into our nation's folklore as legend.
Today, the Anzac spirit is part of our inheritance as Australians. It is a fundamental part of our national identity and defines how we see ourselves. Every year at Anzac Day, we, the inheritors of the Anzac spirit, have the opportunity to renew and refresh our connection with our country's history and pay homage and respect to those heroes of our country's history.
Australia's very first requiem for Gallipoli's fallen was held at St John's Cathedral in the heart of Brisbane. Close to 600 people attended the service arranged by David Garland on 10 June 1915. From that day 100 years ago, Anzac Day services have grown across Brisbane and Australia, becoming one of the most important and iconic commemorative dates on our calendar.
In the period of time leading into the Centenary of Anzac, the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program was announced in early 2013, and this program has provided the community in the electorate of Brisbane with a unique way to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac. I was joined by an exceptional group of notable community leaders in establishing a committee to provide feedback on how the community could best commemorate the centenary. The committee provided genuine feedback and views on how each project would benefit the local community with valuable input from their respective fields.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank each member of the committee: Mr Tony Ralph, president of Legacy Queensland; Mr Terry Meehan, president of RSL Queensland; Mr Kevin Drinkwater, state president of the Naval Association of Australia; Mr Andrew Kilgour AM, president of RSL's South Eastern District; Mr Bill O'Chee, president of the Clayfield-Toombul RSL Sub-branch; Ms Gynith Whatmough from the War Widows' Guild in Queensland; Mr Don Currell, immediate past president of the Queensland branch of the Submariners Association of Australia; Ms Cluny Seager, committee president of the Royal Brisbane Hospitals' Nurses Association; Mr Barry Collins, state treasurer of the Queensland branch of the Naval Association of Australia; Mr Jose de Silva, state vice-president of the Queensland branch of the Naval Association of Australia; and Ms Denise Schellbach, a constituent of the Brisbane electorate.
I was absolutely delighted with the number of applications that were received from community groups and organisations from across the electorate. I was really pleased to be able to update the House on each application that was recommended to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, and subsequently when they received final approval. The Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies submitted an application with a purpose to support the contribution toward the Centenary of Anzac's Jewish program, including a commemorative service, photographic exhibition and the production of educational materials. The application had strong support from the Jewish community and the exhibition centred on the involvement of Australian Jewish service men and women in WWI. Both the service at the synagogue and the travelling exhibition have enabled the local community to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac, while gaining that really valuable insight into the experience of war from a unique cultural perspective.
The work of Mates4Mates and what they do for current and ex-service men and women is nothing short of exceptional. In their application for funding, Mates4Mates established the Queenslander Challenge. That was a trek that started at Woodford and ended at the Mates4Mates' Family Recovery Centre in the heart of Albion. Mates4Mates came up with this unique idea: they commissioned 6,967 commemorative bricks to represent each of the Queenslanders who made the ultimate sacrifice in WWI. Each brick will be carried during the trek and will be used to build a commemorative monument to remember those fallen soldiers. They are going to have many treks; in the inaugural trek in August 2014, each participant was challenged and motived during the journey, while building trust and teamwork, to bring the mateship from those on the ground at Gallipoli to the present day. Each of those who participated carried a brick, which was very, very touching.
St Andrew's Uniting Church, which is based in the Brisbane CBD in the heart of my electorate, was also a grant recipient. St Andrew's has very strong ties to the community and an ongoing Anzac connection, which dates back to 1914. It is home to a number of historical items that are directly linked to WWI. The church holds a display of communion silver that was used by Chaplain Colonel Merrington at Gallipoli. He was there serving and providing holy communion. Those items serve as an ever present reminder to those who visit the church and see those beautiful goblets and displays of silver. As part of the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program, major refurbishment and upgrades will be undertaken to preserve the historical items in St Andrew's Uniting Church. This very valuable part of our Anzac history and it is important that it be preserved.
New Farm State School submitted an application to refurbish the existing WWI memorial, which is a centre point for community commemorations each Anzac Day. I want to congratulate them. The original was constructed in 1922. The memorial honours the 25 former students who fell serving their country in WWI. The memorial at the school is a visible reminder for the students, families and local community of the sacrifices ordinary people from New Farm made to protect our freedom. New Farm State School has a proud history and very well-attended Anzac Day services. I have been very pleased to join in many of them to commemorate this event. Hundreds of students, parents, veterans and local community members attend each year.
The parish of St Mark's in Clayfield also has a long and notable history supporting wounded and returned soldiers. The focal point of St Mark's is a war memorial, which is a stained and leadlight glass window. Work on the memorial window commenced in 1917 and was completed in 1918. The window serves as a memorial to those soldiers from Albion, Clayfield and Wooloowin who made the ultimate sacrifice in WWI. In their application, St Mark's highlighted the need for external safety glass to ensure the window—which depicts Army, Navy, RAAF and Red Cross crests—is safe from potential damage. The parish of St Mark's also holds a roll of honour, listing 111 names of members from the local community who did not return home from WWI. St Mark's has long been involved in the public commemorations for Anzac Day. On approval, the parish are now able to highlight a significant part of the history and the impact of war to those in the local community.
In 1915, the Dungaree's recruitment march travelled from Warwick to Brisbane. They travelled 270 kilometres, signing 125 recruits along the way. To commemorate the epic journey, the Military Brotherhood's military motorcycle club has planned a trip to retrace the route, concluding in Albert Square—which is now known as King George Square. It is going to be held in November 2015 and a commemorative cast bronze plaque will be placed in Brisbane to recognise the centenary of the Dungaree's march and to coincide with the Centenary of Anzac. As part of the Military Brotherhood's military motorcycle club, serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Forces and Commonwealth forces provide each other with camaraderie, mateship and support.
During WWI, 86 nurses, 30 doctors and many orderlies from the Royal Brisbane Hospital dedicated their services and faced great adversity while serving overseas. I was pleased to be at the hospital when photos, stories and a display dedicated to those men and women who served were unveiled. In the heart of Herston, an exhibition has been developed by the committee of the Royal Brisbane Hospitals Nurses Association to display a significant collection of memorabilia from 1914 to 1918. The exhibition was very well attended and was opened by the Governor-General. Windsor State School also marked the Centenary of Anzac with plaques naming 14 students from the school who died in the First World War.
There are many more of these commemorative celebrations that I can talk about. I am honoured to be able to have been to many of these events and to continue to build a sense of awareness and participation in Anzac Day across my local community. My our memory of them never fade. Lest we forget.
It is a great privilege to be able to speak on this motion. On 25 April 2015, all across my electorate of Sturt, people gathered at dawn services and other commemorative events to pay their respects. They came together to mark the centenary of an event that was key in the development of Australia as a nation. One hundred years ago, on the rocky shore of Gallipoli, this young nation stood side by side with its allies. We stood up and were counted with our old friends New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Of course, we must not forget that the campaign at Gallipoli was a tragedy and a failure. We were unable to dislodge the Turkish defenders and so were eventually forced to withdraw. Nearly 9,000 Australians were killed along with 3,000 New Zealanders and 35,000 British.
To many it seems odd that Australia chooses to mark a great defeat in such a way—parades, services and ceremonies for something many countries would rather not acknowledge—but, defeat or not, Anzac Day provides us with the opportunity to remember the sacrifice made by so many during that campaign 100 years ago and the sacrifice of the families, lovers, partners and parents waiting at home. Most importantly, we remember that the Gallipoli campaign was the first time that Australia, a young nation, came together as a nation and stood up with our allies. We had only been founded at Federation 15 years before and were going into battle alongside one of the world's oldest democracies. We were establishing a reputation that our soldiers have fought hard to keep up from that day to now—a reputation for excellence on the battlefield, having an irreverent attitude to authority, fighting for our mates rather than for elusive ideals and being a small army that punches above its weight. This is the same reputation that our forces have aspired to from that day in 1915 through to the terrible scenes of the Western Front, through the Second World War, Korea, Borneo, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, along with countless smaller commitments in between. And so Anzac Day has now become a wider occasion of remembrance. We pause to acknowledge all the sons and daughters of Anzac who have followed in the stead of those original warriors in 1915 and those that have done so much and tried so hard to maintain the Anzac legacy.
I was proud to take my place at the Kensington Park RSL ceremony on this year's Anzac Day. Kensington Park is in the centre of my electorate and the RSL is a hub for ex-service men and women of all generations, as well as the wider community. I, like many Australians, have a close family link to Gallipoli and was proud to be able to acknowledge those links on Anzac Day. My great-uncle Patrick was killed with the 10th Australian Infantry Battalion on the day of the landings itself. He was 19. Patrick's older brother, Octavius, who went into battle alongside him, survived the Gallipoli campaign but ultimately lost his life later in France in March 1917, aged 26. And, finally, my father, Remington, served in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan after World War II and then with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment as a medical officer in Korea.
I was heartened to see how many Sturt locals came out to attend the service and to hear of the strong crowds at other services in Sturt. Every year the numbers seem to keep on increasing as a new generation of Australians take the time to pay their respects. I am particularly pleased that a number of organisations in my electorate were able to benefit from the government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program to ensure we were able to properly mark this event.
I congratulate all the organisations, made up almost exclusively of volunteers, who have worked so hard to plan, apply for and now put these grants to work for the good of the community. Some examples include: Knightsbridge Baptist Church, which will erect a plaque to commemorate the soldiers of the First World War; Maltese RSL subbranch, which will also install a plaque as well as publish a book Malta and the ANZACs: the Nurses of the Mediterranean, highlighting the valuable contribution made here; Kensington Park RSL subbranch, which will refurbish and replace their memorial grove ensuring this special place appropriately commemorates the sacrifices made so many years before; St Martin's Anglican Church, which has an ambitious plan for the construction of a memorial pathway and garden to recognise those in the local community who served in the First World War; Campbelltown City Council, which will upgrade the First World War Memorial at the intersection of Lower North East Road and Gorge Road, making sure that it stands proud for generations to come; St Morris RSL subbranch, which will erect a new Anzac memorial; the St George's Church historical group, which issued a special commemorative booklet and conducted the special service on the Sunday after Anzac Day that I was privileged enough to attend; and, finally, Payneham RSL subbranch, which will attach a sword to the cross of sacrifice within their garden of remembrance. These grants, along with the countless services and ceremonies conducted by RSLs, churches, schools and community groups, stand testament to the commitment of the people of my electorate of Sturt to properly recognise the sacrifices made by generations past.
While we rightly remember those who lost their lives and fought at Gallipoli, it is the case that our human links to the men and women of that time are slowly fading. No Australian veterans of the conflict remain alive. Our duty now is to those veterans of later wars, who are still alive. Some are bearing the physical injuries and scars of their service. Some are bearing the more insidious, because they are invisible, mental scars. Unable to forget, unable to let go, they deserve and need our help. To those who have served and are struggling I say: 'Please, ask for help. It is available and there for you, and there is no shame in seeking it.' To all of us I say this: 'They fought on our behalf, and now we must do what we can to help.'
I have long been proud to represent the electorate of Sturt but never more than on this occasion. Watching a community come together to pay their respects to those brave Australians of 100 years ago was a fantastic thing. To speak on their behalf on this motion today is, indeed, a great privilege, and I commend this motion to the House.
I believe it is best to give this speech in three parts: firstly, Anzac's meaning to me; secondly, how it is perceived and reflected in the people whom I have the honour to represent; and thirdly, my thoughts on the effect of Anzac Day on our nation. With this perception being merely through my eyes, I hope it is not seen as indulgent, but s there are so many views on Anzac Day, we do not need to be told how to see it, but rather to compile all our views so as to say how we see it.
I am happy with the investment our government has made to support this righteous memory. At the very least, to me it is the very minor act of getting out of bed for the dawn service in memory of those who got out of a boat at Anzac Cove to be shot at, then later to be shot at on the Western Front or to be shot at in Palestine or to be shot at later in the wars in North Africa, Europe, the Pacific, Vietnam, Korea and now in the Middle East—or to be shot at in the skies or to be shot at at sea. All I have to do is get out of bed for people who were and are offering their life.
My father's father was an Anzac, arriving on the first day and leaving on the last. He was awarded a Military OBE and a Distinguished Conduct Medal. He went from Gallipoli, where the memories he had would have been horrific, but the ones he conveyed home were of swimming in the sea, growing vegetable gardens near his guns and of good humour amongst his fellow soldiers. After Gallipoli for him it was off to the Western Front and then, later in a further war, off to the Pacific, where at one stage he was the Commander of the Royal Artillery. He was a person who had progressed from the bottom of the army to be the boss—through all the ranks.
My mother's father enlisted in the air force as a radio operator on the ground of the Western Front at the age of 16. I have a photo of him, and he looks 16. When he became dangerously ill with double pneumonia he was left for dead, but he was nursed back to life by a Catholic nun and then sent home. My father's mother had, I think, seven brothers who were all killed in the service of England. My mother's mother had brothers who served in Palestine. My father served but was repatriated after an accident before even getting on the boat to embark for the Italian peninsula towards the end of the Second World War in an accident which smashed his leg and changed his life. In respect for these people, I did my brief time in the Army Reserve.
I will not pretend that I know why they served. Was it patriotism, adventure, escape or maybe as unremarkable as a job? What is important is what these people became when they went from their shores to serve elsewhere—the mateship, bravery, resilience, injury, trauma and, tragically for some of the families involved, death.
In my grandfather's citation it is noted that during operations in April 1918, when a Warrant Officer Second Class in action at Messines, he carried out his duties under very difficult circumstances in a most capable and gallant manner. Owing to casualties among the officers, he was several times in charge of the wagon lines and always maintained the ammunition supply, often under heavy shell-fire. In operations at Bapaume during August and September on several occasions when the wagon lines were shelled, his courage and coolness largely helped to avoid serious loss. When the same person was employed as a farm labourer at Hampden in New Zealand prior to the First World War, I wonder if he anticipated this life ahead. I wonder if he would have had the capacity then to undertake action to the extremities of personal courage required. Or did this developed over time and under the pressure of war? I know he was never the same person after the war as he was before, and the horror of war had a permanent psychological effect, manifesting at certain times in screaming dreams and terrified careering around the house and to hide outside on the road. People knew it as 'the jumps'; it was the fear of getting buried alive by shell fire that stayed with him, amongst other terrors.
In New England local men joined the local battalion, the 33rd. A Company was drawn from Armidale and Tamworth; B Company from Walcha, Uralla, Barraba, Bingara and Manilla; C Company from Narrabri, Moree and Inverell; and D Company from Glen Innes, Guyra and Tenterfield. Two members of the battalion received the Victoria Cross, John Carroll and George Cartwright. The battalion received a total of 14 battle honours, which were bestowed upon it in 1927.
As an anecdote of the exceptional, we should consider the actions of John Carroll, VC. Between 7 and 12 June 1917 at St. Yves, Belgium, during the Battle of Messines, Private Carroll rushed the enemy's trench and bayoneted four of its occupants. He then noticed a comrade in difficulty and went to his assistance, killing another of the enemy. Next, he single-handedly attacked a machine gun team, killing three of them and capturing the gun. Later, two of his comrades were buried by a shell; in spite of heavy shelling and machine-gun fire, he managed to rescue them. It has been claimed that Carroll failed on three occasions to appear at Buckingham Palace for his Victoria Cross award ceremony and, when he did turn up on the fourth occasion, he took advantage of one of his entitlements as a VC recipient to call out the Palace Guard. Carroll was severely wounded at Passchendaele in October 1917. John Carroll died 4 October 1971, aged 80, in Perth, Western Australia. Carroll obviously did not act for personal adulation; he acted because of necessity, personality and mateship.
Another example of this to show that it was not unique was George Cartwright. On 9 December 1915—his 21st birthday—Cartwright enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force for service during the First World War. Allotted to the newly raised 33rd Battalion, Cartwright served with the 33rd through the Battle of Messines, where he was wounded in June 1917. Later, in April 1918, he was wounded again when the 33rd Battalion's position was attacked with gas while holding a position around Villers-Bretonneux. He was briefly hospitalised but returned to duty in June. In August, the Allies launched the Hundred Days Offensive around Amiens, which resulted in a series of advances as the Allies sought to break through the Hindenburg Line. On 31 August 1918, at Road Wood, south-west of Bouchavesnes, near Peronne, France, when two companies were held up by machine gun fire, Cartwright attacked the gun alone under intense fire. He shot three of the crew, and, having bombed the post, captured the gun and nine enemy soldiers. For his actions he was recommended for the Victoria Cross. On 30 September 1918 he was wounded and evacuated to England. Cartwright was conferred with his VC by George V, and, at the end of the war, Cartwright was repatriated to Australia, arriving in March 1919. George Cartwright died on 2 February 1978, aged 83, at Gordon, New South Wales. I wonder if those around him in Gordon understood who this old man in his eighties was, and what he was.
For its service, the 33rd Battalion received the following battle honours: Messines 1917, Ypres 1917, Polygon Wood, Broodseinde, Poelcappelle, Passchendaele, Somme 1918, Ancre 1918, Amiens, Albert 1918, Mont St Quentin, Hindenburg Line and St Quentin Canal 1916-18. Both my grandparents and the New England 33rd Battalion served at Messines—in a couple of miles of line on the other side of the world a formative experience that would flow down from that point forward along the generations.
In the smallest village and in the cities, pride and sadness was etched into war memorials. Where we place flowers, mothers shed tears. Where we wait for the Last Post, wives waited and waited and waited. Where we stand, children longed for lost fathers. To quiet houses the trauma came home. To careers the dent of terrifying experience changed all prospect of a normal life. Yet before they left to go overseas to serve they had swum in the same rivers we swam in, climbed the same hills and covered themselves against the frost of New England winters. They were not bred for some divine purpose peculiar to us; they were one of us. You do not need to be related to someone who has served to be connected.
Now on Anzac Day, on a quiet morning, a memorial brings together people at every stage in life in every position in society, in every form of good luck or bad. In the dark they are all as one, the darkness hiding the good shoes from the bad, the young from the old and allowing the purpose to focus, remember, pray, mourn and thank. We have and are proud to have an egalitarian ethos. So many reasons are given for it but Anzac Day epitomises it and might suggest a reason for it. The only thing they ask of us, those who paid the supreme sacrifice away at other wars and all who have sacrificed in the defence of our nation in so many other ways, is to remember. If we forget then the sacrifice was for what purpose? Lest we forget.
April 25 1915, 100 years ago this year, is obviously a day of singular significance in our national story. For nigh on 100 years this day has been remembered by Australians as one that is sacred to the memory of those who fought in war and one on which we remember the privilege we have as a nation that has lived in peace. Anzac Day was not the day when we were discovered or when we became a nation or we won our independence, but it was in a real sense the day when we proved to the world that we were worthy of nationhood—that Australians could be counted upon to do our share. The image of the tough Aussie battler was certainly entrenched on the day. There is no other day that provides such a deeply held communal, national, heart-felt, long-standing view of who and what we are, and what we have to live up to.
I was recently at the War Memorial alongside the name of my great uncle who died in World War I. A Swiss television crew came up to me and asked 'Why do Australians commemorate Anzac Day?' People around the world think it is rather strange that we should recognise a day that ended in military disaster—a campaign that was more noted for its successful exit than for the battle itself. For us this has been an important national day. I replied to the crew that this was important to Australians because it said a lot about our nationhood—it said a lot about what we believed of ourselves and our willingness to accept responsibility to be citizens of the world and to ensure that our nation could continue to live in peace into the future.
For a while we thought Anzac Day might just drift away, as one by one the veterans passed through the effluxion of time. I think it is exciting, and it is important, that Australians are turning up to Anzac Day commemorations in bigger numbers than ever before. It is impressive that school children and young people and citizens who never went to war are now engaged in Anzac Day commemorations in every town and village in the nation. That ensures that those who fought and died in war will never be forgotten, will always be remembered, and hopefully each of those days will be an opportunity for Australians to dedicate themselves again to their citizenship, their obligations to their country and the recognition of those who paid the supreme sacrifice, or came back maimed and injured as they sought to defend the things we hold dear as a nation.
The Anzacs were tough and intensely Australian. Young men were travelling overseas from a young country, keen to establish their own and their national credentials—credentials boosted by the thousands that joined up immediately Britain declared war on Germany in August 1914 such that we had a convoy of 30,000-plus Australians and New Zealanders, as then dominions, members of the Empire, on the water heading for England and subsequently diverted to Egypt by the beginning of November.
Anzac critics believe we were naive or perhaps over eager—even servile—to be so quick to volunteer but we were then, unflinchingly, part of the British Empire. Upwards of a quarter of our pioneering Anzacs were in fact born in Britain. Several per cent more were born in other corners of the Empire. But they knew they were going to this battle as Australians, and they knew that how they behaved under fire was going to establish Australia's reputation. We know very well how they handled themselves. They set a fantastic standard not just at the landing but throughout the eight months of the campaign. There was a marvellous indomitability to the way they clung to the beachhead that they had established for so long at such great cost as they created a legend that has stayed so fresh. Selfless mutual reliance, despite the fact that it could be and so very often was fatal, shorthanded as 'mateship', is perhaps the most important, most deeply embedded Anzac example that became, because of Gallipoli, the standard for what being Australian means. We look out for and after each other, whatever the price—and if there is a job to do, however tough it is, Australians can be counted upon.
My Anzac Day is usually spent attending as many commemorations in my electorate as I can, travelling from town to town—beginning at 4.28 or a little later with dawn services and then trying to visit four, five or six commemorations during the day. But this year I had the honour of representing the government at the national commemoration in Canberra. More than 100,000 people attended the pre-dawn commemoration, the biggest ever. It was certainly a moving event in the dawn light. It was an occasion on which Canberra—and, for that matter, cities and towns right across the country—provided a fitting tribute to our ANZAC forebears and a reminder that as a nation we will never forget.
Later, I witnessed the parade, attended the commemoration service and then, in the evening, attended the dusk service at the War Memorial. I commend the War Memorial for the way in which they have embraced this Anzac Centenary, with the projection of the names of all those who lost their lives in World War I onto the memorial each night. These new dusk services at the memorial are attended by significant numbers of people, as we pay tribute each day now to those who were lost in battle. So, to be in Canberra on Anzac Day was indeed very special.
My Anzac week had commenced little earlier, when I farewelled the ANZAC troop train re-enactment in Winton, on its way to Brisbane. The old steam train, loaded up with people who were dressed in period costume, took several days to make the journey, but in each and every town the communities came out to cheer, wave and relive the atmosphere of the trains full of troops going off to war in a bygone area.
On the morning before Anzac Day, in my home town of Maryborough, it was a special privilege to be present at dawn for the unveiling of a statue of Lieutenant Duncan Chapman. Duncan Chapman was the first Australian ashore at Anzac Cove. He was born in Maryborough, went to school in Maryborough, worked in a solicitor's office in Maryborough and joined the army in Maryborough. The statue of him in the park, near where he lived and worked, is a fitting tribute to this great Australian—a symbol of all of those who went ashore that morning.
Chapman was promoted to captain at Gallipoli and to major after the withdrawal, when the veterans of Gallipoli were divided up among the thousands of fresh troops then arriving in Egypt to form new Australian divisions in preparation for the Western Front. He was allocated to the 45th Battalion, which was part of the 4th Division, and was a major in D Company when the division went into the front line at Pozieres for our first major engagement in France, in August 1916. He arrived at the front line on 5 August and was killed the very next day. He survived the whole of the Gallipoli campaign but died on his first day of engagement in France.
Duncan Chapman is one of the prides of Maryborough and the district. I am delighted that he has been recognised in a statue that people visit every day and that, as a result of that memorial, they are better able to understand what Anzac Day means to us all.
At Gallipoli, there were 20,000 Australians wounded and almost 9,000 killed, but this motion before us asks us to remember also the brave soldiers of New Zealand, Great Britain, France, India and Newfoundland who fought alongside us in that battle. It is appropriate that we do so because many Australians, though well aware of our own involvement, do not necessarily appreciate that this was a battle involving not just the ANZACs and the Turks. In this motion we also acknowledge our then foes, the Turks. The relationship that has developed between Australia and Turkey, in which we recognise in each other's bravery, is, I think, a great tribute to both countries.
The qualities displayed by our people at Gallipoli from 25 April 1915, a century ago this year, gave us a legend worthy of its central role in the way we see ourselves as a nation. Lest we forget.
I am proud to associate myself with and be part of this motion on the 100th anniversary of the landings at Gallipoli.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Far from 'the years condemn', the opposite is true for those who fought in World War I. Anzac Day is not a commemoration hanging on by its fingertips. In fact, the further away we are from the actual event the day commemorates, the brighter the eternal flame burns. In my electorate of McMillan, people from all walks of life, me among them, honour the memory of the fallen in dawn ceremonies that, as we all know, feature brass bands and choirs, stirring speeches and sleepy children laying wreaths at cenotaphs. But our enthusiasm for the day may not always have been as strong.
Back in 1919, the Australian Labor Party convention wanted to eliminate from all school texts any reference to any commentary extolling wars, battles or heroes of past wars. In 2008, the Australian War Memorial's then principal historian, Dr Peter Stanley, wrote:
… Anzac Day from the early 1920s, remained neglected as an historical event. For 50 years after Bean—
Charles Bean—
published his definitive official history very few seemed interested in the Great War.
For a time, in the aftermath of defeat in Vietnam, it seemed that Anzac Day might vanish into obscurity, like Empire Day.
But an assertive Australian national identity has returned to affirm the connection between Gallipoli and nationhood.
In that same insightful article, Dr Stanley asserted:
Nations create the history they need.
That begs the question: why do we need to affirm the connection between what those soldiers did and who we are today? Why do we need that history? The bravery of those who suffered in the face of mud, blood and bullets can never be questioned. The horrific nature of what occurred at Gallipoli, on the Western Front and in many other battles throughout World War I twists the mind. The more you read about it, the more dramatic, sad and tragic it becomes.
The aftermath of that terrible time left a stain on Australia that wormed its way down the generations. If the same commitment in relative terms were made today it would mean 2.5 million of Australia's best and brightest enlisting for service, with 350,000 of them never returning home and a further one million coming back but being far from what they were—damaged forever, shell-shocked with missing limbs and haunted by a past they could never outrun.
There is no question in my mind that those men and women who endured the bleakest and most savage of injustices 100 years ago should always be remembered. Anzac Day reflects on the horrors of war and the carnage that comes in the wake of such sacrifice. However, as the years progress and our slim generational attachment to the fallen becomes ever slimmer, I begin to wonder what drives people to remember and to commemorate. Young people, born generations after that tragic time, are helping to lead the charge to make sure we never forget. In the information age they are searching for an identity, an essential answer to what makes us Australian. The Anzac story is one to which they come back again and again. They, like me, are astounded at the sacrifice of that generation. They, like me, probably wonder whether we would be as strong again. I would like to think so. Perhaps we do not just make the history we need but keep the history we need—the history that reminds us what it means to be truly heroic, truly brave; the history that reminds us what Australians are capable of.
The Anzac story is an important narrative for a small country. It is a story that has often been retold in many guises. It is reflected in any tale of Aussie success or failure, whether it be Bradman, Freeman, Flynn, Mawson or anyone else who has stepped onto the world stage. Australia in the true Anzac spirit is a small nation that fights above its weight. This is our mythology, our reality. We know we can do anything, for it is in our DNA and it is in our history.
But why so many before dawn? Why do we stand there in the darkness before the sunrise? Why do people begin coming to the ceremony out of the darkness: children, Scouts, Guides and people by their hundreds? What is calling them to come out? Is it the Anzac spirit? Is it spiritual? Is it the unseen? Is it the blood of the Anzacs and Turks crying out through the generations, 'We are not to be forgotten'? The blood of the finest generation of men cries out for justice from a failed, fatal conflict in a foreign war on foreign soil. Is it the blood of the fallen crying out from a cenotaph, 'We were sacrificed on the altar of futility'? Is that what this generation identifies? Or could it be the most human of emotions? Is it grief, secretly passed through the generations by the thoughts and actions of their parents and grandparents? It is a response that grows over the years rather than diminishes. Is it that call to remember? The question for me is to be answered by other generations not this one. I just note the call.
I would like to mention, as I conclude, those who helped us with the local Anzac commemorative grants: Steve Moy, Nigel Hutchinson-Brooks, Lenoar Gullquist, Ray James, Perce Brewer, Ron Blaire and Colin Teese. They did a marvellous job. It was an honour to work with them. It was an honour to see the programs that they put together in this celebration.
This is a sombre moment. I heard the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking about his electorate and the establishment of the monuments that were there to represent those who survived Gallipoli and were then tragically mowed down in the next tranche of the war. I put the question to the parliament today and to the Deputy Prime Minister: could we send our children to that again? Could we send our 18- and 19-year-olds to that again? Like the Deputy Prime Minister, I was asked on behalf of the federal government to attend ceremonies a couple of years ago. We were asked to take a tiny cross made by kids from Tasmania and place it on one of the crosses. It is unimaginable. If the guns and the bullets did not get them, the conditions certainly did. Even though I said in my speech that I would like to think we would be as brave and as strong as they were, I would have to say to the House that I do not know whether we could be. But remember that this nation was believed to be absolutely under threat. We owe them a great deal for their sacrifice.
The motion moved by the Prime Minister on the Centenary of Anzac reminds us that every Australian has a story to share about the Great War. Part of my own family's story of the Great War is the pain of one brother dying while the other survived. My grandfather William Hudson served on the Western Front when he was 17. He was badly injured in an attack at Bullecourt. He always had a limp. My great-uncle Athol, my grandfather's brother, was killed. Like me, he was a Rhodes scholar, but he never got to Oxford, other than via a memorial in Rhodes House that is there today.
It was a tragedy that many families experienced—like the Bolton brothers. Private Fred Bolton from Young enlisted in October 1914, while his younger brother Harry, inspired by his brother's efforts, enlisted in Cootamundra in 1916. Both brothers were fighting in different parts of the world when Harry was killed in 1917. Fred would return home to Young on Boxing Day 1918, later taking up farming just outside of Goulburn, near where I live today. Boys from the bush like the Bolton brothers, boys who could ride and shoot, became an integral part of Australia's involvement in the Great War.
Many country lads flocked to join the 1st Light Horse Regiment in August 1914, often bringing their own horses and some even brought their dogs. It was all to be a great adventure. Goulburn's Alice Chisholm was to have an adventure of a slightly different kind. She was a devoted war welfare worker who established soldiers' canteens in Egypt and Palestine, providing meals and refreshments to thousands of troops every day. Alice sailed for Egypt in mid-1915 with one of her daughters, after her son Bertram was wounded serving as a light horseman at Gallipoli. The lack of facilities for Australian troops prompted Mrs Chisholm, with her own funds, to start three canteens. Soldiers later wrote of her 'true Australian bush hospitality'. People from the country like the Bolton brothers, like Alice Chisholm, gave their all to the Great War.
It was in this true blue spirit that, 100 years ago, the Kangaroo march went through much of what is now the electorate of Hume. Gallipoli had resulted in such a huge loss of life that enlistments to the Great War had dropped. The Kangaroo march collected 222 men along the way. Townsfolk turned out in droves to cheer the men on. Arriving along Parramatta Road, down George Street and into Macquarie Street on 7 January 1916, the men were greeted as heroes by the waiting crowds. The Daily Telegraph, with the same sort of quality that it reports today, reported at the time:
They came quietly, not cheering or exulting, not lording it over all, but as men of firm purpose and steady resolve.
Many of the Kangaroos were recruited into the 55th Battalion, which was to arrive in France in 1916. The Kangaroos' motto was: 'I go out to return by courage and faith.' A re-enactment of this extraordinarily inspiring march, the Kangaroo March, will commence in Wagga Wagga on 5 September. The march will progress through Cootamundra, Wallendbeen, Harden-Murrumburrah, Galong, Binalong, Bowning, Yass, Jerrawa, Gunning, Breadalbane, Parkesbourne, Goulburn, Marulan, Tallong, Wingello, Bundanoon, Exeter, Moss Vale, Mittagong, Hill Top, Balmoral, Couridjah and Thirlmere, and many Hume villages in between. The march will arrive in Campbelltown on 10 October. Descendants of the original Kangaroos, brave men from the country who answered the call, will be participating in the re-enactment, and communities along the way will be hosting them just as they did 100 years ago—flying flags, hanging bunting and playing music. Everyone is absolutely welcome to participate in the march or to cheer the marchers on. I will be joining the Kangaroos for a couple of legs along the way.
It is a significant part of First World War centenary commemorations for my electorate and it is an absolute pleasure to support this great community-driven event. It is one of 34 projects funded in Hume under the government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program—the largest number of approved applications for a federal electorate—and one of the stand-out events in Hume. It was a pleasure to provide just over $13,000 under the program.
We have a large number of other outstanding community projects that are completed or near completion that have received funding to help communities share the special stories of their own fallen heroes. They are things like the new community memorials to be installed at Wollondilly Anglican College, Mulwaree High School and Goulburn High School; a school banner competition coordinated by the Wollondilly Shire Council; a commemorative book designed and published by the Mount Hunter Public School and another from the Picton and District Historical and Family History Society; a commemorative calendar published by the Collector Historical Society; an essay competition and art show from the Boorowa Remembers committee; a memorial and garden at Bungonia, Colo Vale, Binalong and another established by the Goulburn Rose Festival committee; as well as a range of other events and commemorations.
The Centenary of Anzac is a momentous year for our nation. Extraordinary stories have been shared of the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the Great War for the next generation. I thank so many of my constituents for sharing their stories with me in this centenary year.
The landing at Gallipoli is an episode in our nation's history—one that broke the hearts of families, villages, communities and countries and forever entrenched the legend of Anzac as an intrinsic part of our nation's identity. Every day we still see parts of the legacy of Anzac right throughout our country. We shall never forget that 8,141 Australians would die on that peninsula. We should never forget that terrible toll, and we should never forget the devastation that more than 8,000 families endured. Families in the twenties were still coming to terms with their losses; you only need to look at the newspapers of the time: parents were being offered a medal in return for their loss. It does not seem to be a very fair exchange, but for those parents it was everything and for many it was the only thing they had to remember their sons by.
In 1914, there were fewer than five million Australians. We were a country full of hope. Out of the gloom of Victorian terraces and rundown inner city suburbs, a new Australia was emerging, a gentile country, a new country, making a statement with fine Federation houses, a new flag and a new spirit. We were no longer settlers or convicts; we were mates. We were no longer New South Welshmen, Victorians, South Australians, Western Australians, Queenslanders or Tasmanians—we always have our identity at State of Origin time; we were Australians. Yes, we were young and we were free, but we were still guided by what was, at the time, our mother country, Britain.
It was an era when the horse and cart still dominated the roads and when trams opened up our inner city suburbs. It was a period when we began to dream big. Then, on 28 June 1914, something very remote and unremarkable to the average Australian happened: a Serbian nationalist assassinated Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria and Hungary. The heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was dead. On 28 July, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. This, in turn, saw a complex series of treaties invoked which placed Britain at war with Germany.
Being part of the Empire, Australia was also at war with Germany, so Australian troops boarded steamships and headed to the Northern Hemisphere. Initially, most headed to Egypt and set up camp under the pyramids. For many young men it was an adventure, a trip of a lifetime, a free pass to visit family back in England. In Egypt, they were chaotic. There was larrikin behaviour towards British officers, and many ran amok through the settlements—but, soon, the fun would be over.
The war had reached a point where allied Russia was being starved of supplies because enemy countries were blocking access. A plan was hatched to try to ship supplies through the Dardanelles Strait—a body of water just over 60 kilometres long and, in places, just 1,500 metres wide—to supply Russia from the Black Sea. First they sent a shipping convoy, but the strait was heavily mined. Tragic assumptions were made. It was thought the Turkish army would be unwilling to fight and that troops would be able to take the shoreline and secure the Dardanelles.
On the morning of 25 April 1915 the first Australians went ashore. When they landed they faced a small beach and huge cliffs. The Turks were waiting. That we held any position that day was a miracle. We were in a stalemate for eight months. It was there, dug into trenches, that people relied on each other. That support saw incredible bonds formed, which we recognise today as mateship.
Gallipoli was part of a war that saw 416,809 Australians enlist and around 60,000 die. It ruined families; it broke hearts. But the mateship formed on that tragic shoreline would also serve to define our nation. We were no longer colonies. We were no longer English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh—we were all Australian. For a while, even our Indigenous population were treated as Australian and equal in every sense of the word. Sadly—very sadly—that goodwill ebbed away in the following years, and only now are we finally starting to break down the layers of discrimination. For the Turks, too, Gallipoli was a pivotal moment. It defined modern Turkey. It saw the demise of the Ottoman Empire. For the Turks, too, there were tens of thousands of families experiencing the pain of loss. In this hundredth year we commemorate all of this. We should never forget the legacy our forebears left.
In my electorate of Lindsay this year we are restoring honour roll boards for our local schools. The Penrith RSL sub-branch is organising the restoration which will mean those boards will continue to play a pivotal role for the next 100 years in ensuring so many schoolchildren also understand the losses. Recently I had the pleasure of looking at some of these boards at Llandilo, Penrith, Orchard Hills and Emu Plains public schools. On these visits it struck me just how well our younger generation understand the Anzac spirit and the honour in keeping it alive. These were kids in public schools, yet they knew what had happened 100 years ago. They knew what these brave young men did for our nation. Some of the principals will use those rolls as the basis for research on the young men from our local community that went to war. Students will pick names from the boards and check military records to learn about this history.
I would also like to talk about Wollemi College in Werrington, a school which is building a memorial garden as a permanent reminder of all who have sacrificed. Recently 102,804 poppies were planted in Poppy Park in Penrith—a poppy for every serviceman and servicewoman who has died in war since the Sudan conflict in 1885. Media right around the world talked about Poppy Park in Penrith. I would like to commend the work of Martin and Owen Rogers for bringing Poppy Park to life.
In September we will see the Cooee March go right through Penrith. A cooee march also came through Penrith a century ago on a recruitment drive for young, fit and able-bodied men to join the war effort. The government is supporting the march with a day of commemorations in St Marys. The original march began in Gilgandra with 26 men. They walked 320 miles. By the time they reached Sydney, they were 263 men strong. They were blokes wanting to help in a time of need, as reports were coming home about the horrific situation our diggers faced. In September, people will march in peacetime. A century ago, many marched to board ships that would take them to their final resting places. All of this is being remembered in Lindsay, with many schools this year having held moving Anzac ceremonies.
The human toll of this war was tragic. But there was a double tragedy. The workhorses used to till our soil and build our roads also left for war. It is estimated that 136,000 horses were taken to war—never to come home. Only one Waler would ever return. As somebody who grew up with horses, I was very proud as a 16-year-old to have my Waler take part in an Anzac march. I think my horse knew what he was doing that day. Horses in Lindsay are amazing animals. In fact, it was my great grandfather that joined the Light Horse. He used his two horses to grade the Northern Road and Mulgoa Road. He went off to war and, of course, his horse never came back. He marched out with the Light Horse Brigade from Luddenham. This year, 2015, is a year of commemoration. It is a year in which to be proud, a year of us remembering those values that still define Australia today and a year that we must never forget.
In listening to the various contributions in relation to this motion on the Centenary of Anzac and the 100th anniversary of the landings of Gallipoli, it has been very moving for me to hear the various stories and anecdotes as well as the excerpts from letters written to loved ones by our Australian diggers who fought in that very fateful landing. It engenders in me—and I think it engenders in everyone in this House and, indeed, around our whole country—a monumental pride in those great men and women who came before us as well as, quite frankly, a feeling of inadequacy that no matter what we do in our lives and no matter what sacrifices we make in our lives, they will never ever amount to the sacrifices that those men and women voluntarily undertook.
It is lamentable that one of the things that we always focus on with the landings of Gallipoli, inevitably, is the fact that, from a strategic military perspective or from a planning perspective in a military sense, it was not our finest hour. I think that that is fair to say. But the courage of those soldiers, who voluntarily stepped onto the sand and fought their brave Turkish enemies at the time, is something that I think is a victory of their character and a victory of their spirit, and that, in a sense, has been something that we have been able to engender in this country ever since. Of course, at the time the mother country declared war on Germany, Australia was bound to similarly do so. If you look back at that 100 years and how far we have come in terms of being a proud, vibrant, independent nation, while still embodying the values, the commitment, the sacrifices and the spirit of those men and women who volunteered to serve, it is something that is quite extraordinary and amazing. One thing that I have really appreciated, even in my lifetime, is the sense of patriotism, the attention and the respect that we increasingly give to those men and women who served in the First World War and, in particular, the 20,000 Australians who fought at Gallipoli.
In my own electorate of Deakin, I was very fortunate to be able to speak at a dawn service at the Ringwood RSL. It was quite extraordinary for me when I got up to speak; it was the first time, in the dark, that I was able to look out on the crowd. We had to close down Maroondah Highway. There were 5,000 or 6,000 people who arrived at the Ringwood clock tower for the service organised by the Ringwood RSL. It was absolutely awe-inspiring for me to look out at something that was more akin to a football crowd than anything that I had seen before at a dawn service. Having grown up in Ringwood myself, I can track in my own mind the growth of that dawn service over the last 20 years or so. That, I think, is testament to our national leaders over many years, our civic institutions, and our returned servicemen and servicewomen, who have gone out of their way to make the story, the courage, the commitment and the love of country of those men and women at Gallipoli real—real for people in my generation and real for the younger Australians coming through.
It was not only the Ringwood RSL. I attended services and marched with the Blackburn RSL and the Croydon RSL, and I spoke to members of the Mitcham RSL. The numbers of young men and women, of students and of schools who participated and got involved are very, very heartening for me, because one of our primary obligations and jobs is to ensure that young people coming through appreciate—even more than we appreciate now—the sacrifice of those great Australians. We are extraordinarily blessed. In the rough and tumble of arguments that go on in our society and in this chamber, we must never forget that we are extraordinarily blessed and that none of it would be possible were it not for the sacrifice of those men and women in World War I and of all of our servicemen and servicewomen in later years. What bigger sacrifice than to knowingly and willingly put yourself in harm's way for the love of your country and, more importantly, for the love of our democratic freedoms and values?
It was also an outstanding honour for me, as a member of parliament, to be able to assist various local groups in my electorate of Deakin to appropriately commemorate the Centenary of Anzac through our Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. It was wonderful that the community, returned services, historical societies and others so enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to raise the profile and really bring home to our young people, in particular, the enormity and the importance of the Centenary of Anzac. I am very pleased that I was able to recommend and support funding for the Croydon Historical Society, who are putting together a very important publication on the local servicemen and servicewomen who served. What better way to create vivid images and knowledge in our young people's minds than to give them stories of local people—somebody who might have been born and had grown up on a street two minutes from your own home, who might have gone to your primary school, who may be a great-great-grandfather or great-great-grandmother to one of your mates at school? What better way to make it real for them, rather than just a purely historical exercise, than to tell those stories? I was very pleased to be able to support the Croydon Historical Society.
I was also pleased that we were able to support the Australian Institute of Genealogical Studies, who similarly want to tell the stories of local people who went away to fight and who want to enable their families—many of whom may not know that they existed, may not know of this service—to search for them and find them in an easy way. Similar to that is some support that I, along with the members for Casey, Aston and La Trobe, gave Eastern Regional Libraries, who have put together an outstanding database, an easy reference guide and tool, that can be used by anybody to search for their loved ones and get a full understanding of their service—precisely what they did—and all the details that we can possibly summon about these people. We are very blessed: we are the Google generation and everything is at our fingertips. Organisations like the Croydon Historical Society and the Institute of Genealogical Studies do that hard work for us and enable us to make those stories real.
I was also very pleased to be able to support the Maroondah City Council and Whitehall City Council, who are putting together a program of events over the next 12 to 48 months that will progressively ensure that we commemorate all of the key milestones for Australians in World War I. It will be very important that we do not just move on from the centenary year but that we ensure that we recognise appropriately all of the key milestones for Australians over that time. For that reason, I am very honoured to speak today and I commend all of my colleagues who have contributed to this debate.
In my electorate of Mackellar, every Anzac Day we commemorate the significance of World War I, and particularly the landing at Gallipoli, in a very memorable way right up and down the peninsula, which in my electorate is from Palm Beach to Dee Why. We do it over two days. We do it on Anzac Day itself but also on the Sunday that precedes Anzac Day. It is comprised of marches, of services, of a unique one-kilometre line of taxi cabs at Manly-Warringah that take the war vets into the city and through the streets of Sydney so they too can be part of it.
We have a unique service which takes place at Collaroy, where a single lifesaving boat usually goes out and, with oars high, a wreath is placed into the ocean waters to recognise the service and sacrifice. But, on this occasion, for this significant 100th anniversary, we decided that the Prime Minister's electorate and mine, which are joined, would combine to have some very important ceremonies take place. One was the commemoration service that took place at Rat Park. In attendance were the Governor of New South Wales, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley; the Prime Minister; the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Mike Baird; myself; the state members for Wakehurst, Pittwater and Davidson; and mayors and councillors from Manly-Warringah, Pittwater and Mossman councils.
The planning for this event took over two years of dedicated work by the Centenary of Anzac Organising Committee, comprising representatives from the federal electorates of Mackellar and Warringah, with Pittwater, Warringah and Manly councils, New South Wales Police, the State Transit Authority, the Rural Fire Service, the Vietnam Veterans Association, the National Servicemen's Association, RSLs and RSL sub-branches and others all involved. The committee was served by the chairman, Mr Bill Hardman, President of the Forestville RSL Sub-Branch; the deputy chairman, Commodore Graham Sloper AM, RAN (Rtd) from the Avalon sub-branch; together with a hardworking committee. The success of the day was made possible by the hard and dedicated work that they put in.
On the day, veterans, schoolchildren, Scout clubs, Girl Guides groups, New South Wales Police, Rural Fire Service, marine rescue, SES and various community group representatives assembled in the Boondah Reserve and marched up Pittwater Road to the strains of music played on pipes and by marching bands. Thousands lined the route and at Pittwater Rugby Park the marchers were greeted by a packed grandstand.
The Australian government provided each electorate with a grant to enable commemorations to take place. Mackellar and Warringah combined to fund the project under the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program, which aimed to give Australians the opportunity to honour the service and sacrifice of all those who have worn our nation's uniform and those who have made the highest sacrifice.
Also on that Anzac Day, thousands of people gathered on the Dee Why beachfront to commemorate the 100th anniversary. This is a traditional place where, each Anzac Day, we march and gather. But on this occasion, thousands and thousands of people attended, and 100 children carrying candles and bearing small white crosses on which personal messages had been written stopped at the dais and placed the white crosses in beds of sand. Instead of one surf-lifesaving boat going out towards the line of breakers, this time 100 boats took part in a very moving ceremony.
All of this brings back to my mind the occasion when I was able to attend the 90th anniversary of the landing on Gallipoli, when I was part of the ADF Parliamentary Program. I was able to join HMAS Anzac, which formed the backdrop for the commemoration service at Gallipoli, and to be part of not 10,000 people but 20,000 people who were present on that occasion—it was packed. We arrived there at one o'clock in the morning, and we waited through those hours until the time was right for the ceremony to commence. I can say, as we stood there, or sat, or huddled, the weather and the temperature got colder and colder. And the closer we got to dawn, the colder was the temperature—the sort of temperature that seeps into the very marrow of your bones, and you feel that chill. The service itself was moving, and one could not help but feel what had happened there—in my case, 90 years ago; for those who were there this time, 100 years ago. The significance of that landing also involved the Navy. HMAS AE2, Australia's submarine, had passed through the Dardanelles, and was certainly influential in, and part and parcel of, the decision to land at Gallipoli and to dig in.
We talk of Gallipoli as being of such enormity in our history—and it is—and yet it was a defeat. People who are not, perhaps, imbued with the understanding of that event, are often perplexed as to why it is we commemorate with such fervour something that was, in fact, not a victory but a defeat. Yet when the Australians did take Lone Pine—you can say that the taking of Lone Pine in itself was a victory. And yet we lost so many: over 8,000 who died. And of course, those who were evacuated went on to serve on the Western Front—and we are now becoming more involved in and knowledgeable about just what took place on the Western Front and how, finally, with General Monash, we did see success.
The plan for the Gallipoli landing did not look like a bad plan. It was meant to foreshorten the war. If it had been successful, it may well have done just that. But what it did give us was the concept of Anzac—the concept of mateship; the concept of being there for your mate and of looking after his welfare. And, as we in my electorate over the weekend commemorated Vietnam Veterans Day, one has to say that every Australian who has worn the Australian uniform is imbued with that concept—that wonderful concept—of Anzac. Those who fought in the Vietnam War were fine soldiers who were initially spurned by an uncritical public, when they came home. But they too had the spirit of Anzac in them, and they served with distinction. But to return to the landing at Gallipoli itself, it is amazing how it has come to be that Australia and Turkey have drawn together, through the suffering and the loss of life, and that we have formed a bond of friendship, with these words of Ataturk:
Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.
This year, many of us in this chamber and elsewhere have spoken of the sacrifice and bravery of the Anzac diggers, nurses, and other military personnel. It is right that we do so. But it is also right that we seek meaning in this sacrifice, and that we question what was achieved by the Great War and how we should best honour and learn from the deaths of so many. The lessons of history are critically important to us today if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past. Australia suffered 60,000 dead and 156,000 wounded in the Great War. The hidden emotional and psychological scars of the war that were never reflected in the statistics ran deep in many thousands of veterans and in the families of returned soldiers. An entire generation of children grew up without their fathers—and while many of those who returned were physically present, they were still missing.
So what exactly does it mean to commemorate 100 years of the Anzacs? And why do we choose to do this as a nation? And do we do this for the right reasons? These are important questions to answer. Commemorating means paying respects by remembering and honouring the sacrifices of Australians and New Zealanders who fought in the Great War. But it does not mean to celebrate or to glorify war, and we must be careful to avoid this. The commemoration must be more than simply a ritual; it must be full of meaning. Bill Denny, a veteran of the South Australia RSL, said in 2012 of the Anzac Centenary commemoration: 'The overarching obligation we have when we anticipate any Anzac commemoration is to truly recognise and accept the brutality, senselessness, and futility of war.' That is from a veteran today. But you might be surprised to hear this quote from the opening of the Australian War Memorial on 11 November 1941, from Australia's Governor General, Lord Gowrie, a Victoria Cross winner and a severely wounded veteran of the Great War. Whilst praising the heroic efforts of the Australian soldiers, and their willingness to sacrifice for the cause they believed in, he stated:
Now the war lasted for four years. It was responsible for the death of over eight million able-bodied men. It was responsible for the wounding and maiming of many, many millions more. It caused universal destruction, desolation and distress without bringing any compensating advantage to any one of the belligerents. It was a war which settled nothing; it was a war in which all concerned came out losers.
Lest we forget that, as we reflect upon this year's commemoration.
The stories that we tell now about the experiences of people 100 years ago matter. The stories that I have heard in my electorate of Melbourne have given me a new insight into the Anzac experience and reminded me of how deeply the effects of war were felt. It has been moving to hear of the soldiers who attended schools or their predecessors in my electorate—including Flemington Primary School, Richmond Primary School, Mount Alexander College and Carlton Gardens Primary School—who never came home from war. It has been a privilege to support these schools in their commemorations.
I have been deeply moved to hear the stories of not only those who fought but those who cared for them. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has recognised the work of Australian surgeons who, through their medical advances during the course of the war, saved many thousands of lives. It was a time when women were so often excluded from the medical profession, so it has been humbling to learn through the memorial of the Victorian Medical Women's Association of the lengths to which Australia's medical women went to ensure that they too could be present in France to save lives.
Caring did not only happen at the front. The thousands of Australian men who fought and died were outnumbered by those who returned to Australia with a permanent disability. The lifetime of work for the women who remained to care for them has too often been unacknowledged in our history. I am pleased to support in my electorate the development of a memorial for women caring for veterans of war. It is right that we now remember the role of the carer in war and reflect on how we can today care for Australia's veterans.
For as we remember those who served a century ago, we must not forget that we are still in an open-ended war in Iraq. If the history of the West's involvement in Middle Eastern wars is anything to go by, there will be few winners and nothing permanent may be settled from this military conflict.
The senselessness of the Great War is best reflected in the questionable reasons for its occurrence, the reasons—the madness and hysteria, and the leadership failures—that led the world into a war that killed 37 million people, three million of them unknown soldiers whose bodies were never recovered and who are often left unaddressed in Anzac commemorations. It was a war that helped set up another world war which years later claimed another 85 million lives.
Much has been written over the past 100 years on what caused this hideous and appalling conflict that killed so many people. Respected historian Paul Ham, in his book written last August for the 100-year commemoration of the First World War and called 1914: The year the world ended, said that World War I was:
… an avoidable nightmare … an unnecessary exercise in collective stupidity and callousness launched by profoundly flawed and emotionally unintelligent men ... that determined the direction of the 20th century.
Ham points the finger of blame for this avoidable war directly at politicians and governments, who he claims were 'wide-awake, sentient decision-makers' who 'collectively manufactured' the war. He also says:
Europe's rulers and political leaders knew something most of their people didn't; a war was coming. A few powerful, old, aristocratic men [brought] war on the world from behind closed doors, free from the scrutiny of a fully enfranchised public or an uncensored press.
He then says:
… for four years, European Governments compelled millions of young men to go to war, to die, to be terribly mutilated, gassed or mentally ruined. They [have] used propaganda, [plain] lies, white feathers, threats and political expedience to goad, threaten, terrify and humiliate men into uniform.
He also strikingly states in the book's conclusion:
Only a legal construction distinguished the Great War from the government-sponsored mass murder of youth.
Could the invasion of Iraq over a decade ago, the subsequent war and the region's descent into barbaric, bloody chaos have been an avoidable nightmare as well? Was it also a failure of leadership and a few powerful politicians and an executive away from scrutiny and a fully enfranchised public that delivered us to this war?
At the same time as our then Prime Minister committed us to joining the United States in the Iraq war, hundreds of thousands of Australians took to the streets of cities across our country to declare that this decision was not in their name and that Australia and Australians should not again become entangled in a war far from home.
Unlike many democracies, in this country it is our Prime Minister who determines whether we go to war. This is plainly wrong. In the US, a vote of Congress decides; in the UK, it is a vote of the House of Commons. In Australia, it should be a vote of parliament, and the Greens will continue to push for that change.
It is critical in this context, as we commemorate 100 years of Anzac, that we reflect on this question of how we are able to get involved in wars. It is critical at this commemoration that we reflect upon the causes of all war, just as much as we reflect upon the many acts of bravery and sacrifice in war. A war avoided is a tragedy foregone.
The Anzac commemoration must also reflect that, as now, back then we were also deeply divided and questioning of our commitment to the war. The 1916 and 1917 referendum votes on conscription, in which conscription was rejected, are examples of how much the war tore the fabric of Australian society apart. If our national identity was born in the Great War, suggesting we all came together as one following the beaches of Gallipoli and the fields of France, then this too is part of our national identity, that we are a people sceptical of fighting in foreign wars beyond our shores. This must be acknowledged.
On this centenary, we must remember our brave ancestors who fought and died not just to win the war but to win the peace. Looking back over the last century, the world has collectively failed in this regard. Indeed, it seems easier to win wars than to win the peace. But this does not mean we should not persevere in resolving conflicts without violence. In remembering the past, we must heed its lessons and feel the suffering of those who came before us. This must lead us to pursue means of achieving peace without violence and the deep pain, suffering and loss that wars bring. We must strive to ensure that our value for life overwhelms the tensions and differences that exist between us. We must not be afraid to challenge the existing powers and broader stories when they push us to repeat the mistakes of the past, whether that be with our families, our friends or our leaders elected to represent us.
Debate adjourned.
I am honoured to speak today about one of the gentlemen of this House, Mr Alby Schultz, who sadly passed away on 13 July this year.
Born in Melbourne in 1939 to a working class family, Alby did not have an easy start. At the age of 14, he ran away from a violent home and was found by Jimmy Betts sleeping under a bridge. Jimmy became an influential figure in Alby's life, helping him with a home and a job. In turn, Alby was quite taken with Jimmy's daughter Gloria, who would later become his wife of 52 years.
He worked as a meat processor at the local abattoir before starting his political career in 1983 as a member of the Cootamundra Shire Council. Following a tough fought preselection, he entered the New South Wales parliament as the member for Burrinjuck. His son Grant said, 'He was very proud of winning that preselection. He told the panel that if they selected him, they'd get two for one: he and Gloria. They were absolutely dynamic as a political pair.' On entering state politics , Alby pledged to represent people of all political persuasions and he did just that for the decade he served as member for Burrinjuck.
In 1998, Alby stood for and won the federal seat of Hume. He went on to become its longest serving member and staunchest advocate. Alby readily admitted he came from a staunch Labor family. In his maiden speech, he said:
An uncle recently told me that my grandfather would turn in his grave, knowing I was a Liberal member of parliament—and he is absolutely right.
In explaining his conversion, he said:
… I was converted to conservative politics at a very young age because extremely well paid union officials, similar to those members opposite, had me out on strike more times than I worked.
That really speaks to the value Alby placed on hard work. Through his own determination and dedication, he worked his way from wheeling manure carts at the abattoir to factory manager. He put himself through night school and completed a business management course. His progression from councillor to state member and from state member to highly respected member for Hume did not happen by chance.
Alby described himself as a 'strong advocate of mainstream values' and 'fierce defender of the traditional family unit'. In his maiden speech, he said:
I intend to defend the mainstream family values which have been pushed aside for political expediency; and I will never compromise my principles, honesty and integrity, no matter the cost.
He was not afraid to cross the floor on matters he felt strongly about and was often described as a maverick MP.
Alby was a family man and it was clear that he adored his wife, Gloria. His reference to her in his maiden speech shows the deep dedication they had to each other. He said:
To my lovely wife, Gloria: thank you for your love, your quiet inner strength, your comfort and support, and for just being beside me; 'the team', as we are known within the region, has been a close successful combination in everything we have done together all our married life.
He spoke often of his sons Dean and Grant, referring to them as being brothers rather than sons. He adored their wives, Debbie and Rebecca, and his five grandchildren.
In his valedictory speech, Alby said:
I stand here in this House content in the knowledge I have given my all as a privileged individual who is here because of the generosity of my fellow Australians.
He absolutely gave his all, a life dedicated to representing those who needed it most, with honour and integrity. I am grateful to have shared the chamber with Alby. My thoughts are with his family at this time. I will miss him and we will all miss him.
I miss Alby; I miss him a lot. When I first arrived here, I think there were five of us who had formerly been members of the New South Wales parliament: Bruce Baird; Tony Windsor; the member for Werriwa, who is still here; and Alby Schultz. Alby was very kind to me from the time that I arrived, but I probably got to know him best during my time as Minister for Agriculture. I think it is worth noting the one member of the then government—so his opposite—that he acknowledged in his valedictory speech was Simon Crean, also a former Minister for Agriculture.
In that final speech, Alby gave one of the most emotive descriptions that I have ever heard of what people go through during times of drought. I quote:
I have watched with a great sense of anguish and sadness the heart-breaking sight of farmers, emotionally drained, when they have to put down badly burnt animals, bury them and take into their homes the smell of the charred countryside and what they have had to do to their suffering animals. They are the epitome of the true Australian rural spirit, which is replicated year in and year out across our sometimes harsh, unforgiving landscape. It is something which sadly is forgotten too quickly by people in this place.
Alby engaged a lot, in particular during my time as Australia's Minister for Agriculture. He had passionate views on wheat. It was at that time that I was responsible for bringing into the parliament the legislation to end the AWB monopoly, which was an issue that ultimately saw Brendan Nelson make the decision that the Liberal Party would back the legislation we had and the National Party decided to oppose it. That suited Alby down to the ground. In almost every interaction I had with Alby, there would be a reference to the National Party. For him, every election that came around, that was the battle that he would often focus on at the both a federal level and a state level. On his passion over wheat, he would acknowledge that it was not necessarily the view of his own wheat growers in any big way. But he had a policy view that if you grew it, you had the right to decide who you would sell it to. He would follow his beliefs there to the letter.
There was also a particular personal significance for me with Alby in that his electorate is where those ancestors of mine who are not convicts—and there were a few—settled. Alby was fascinated when I brought the old family Bible from Tumut to be sworn in on. He came around to my office and we sat down together, looking through the pages and looking through the family history. Whenever I visited the graves of Michael Burke and Bridget McInerney, there, at a tiny little church of what our family reckoned was called Burke Hill but was probably more officially known as Wagra or Wagragobilly, the interest that Alby would show was second to none, for one very simple reason. He viewed the history of the properties in his electorate as an important part of the history of Australia. He understood that a big part of Australia's story rested within the land that he was responsible for within this parliament. With that in mind, I know that, among the different people around the chamber, a lot of people spend a lot of time socialising across the chamber with the other side of politics. I probably do not; but there are a few people who I have formed very strong relationships of trust with over the years. Alby Schultz was one of them. People look at today's politics and say, 'Where are the great personalities?' When we lost Alby, we lost one of them.
I speak on the condolence motion for Alby Schultz. Alby was elected as the member for Hume in 1998. One of the interesting things about that electorate is that when he came in it had previously been represented by the National Party, by John Sharp. Of course, Alby held it for the Liberal Party and my colleague the member for Hume has held it for the Liberal Party as well since Alby retired.
On our side of the House, there are some seats that are Liberal Party seats and some that are National Party seats and have been ever thus, but Hume is the sort of seat where, depending on the candidate, it can be represented by the Liberal Party or the National Party. Alby had worked as a meatworker and as an abattoir worker. I remember hearing people often say that nothing would really faze Alby Schultz because of what he had gone through in his early life. He would not blanch at anything.
I know that some of Alby's fights with the National Party, on our side of politics, were quite legendary. I want to recall a couple of spirited fights that he had with cabinet ministers, including Liberal cabinet ministers. The first one I remember happened very soon after Alby was elected. Alby being elected to Hume meant that there was a vacancy in the New South Wales electorate of Burrinjuck. His wife, Gloria, was the Liberal Party candidate. The National Party candidate was Katrina Hodgkinson, now a minister in the New South Wales government. Katrina had worked as an adviser in this place for Nick Minchin, industry minister and finance minister and a formidable political operator. After the by-election, which was won by Katrina Hodgkinson, I well remember a party room—
It was not a by-election.
I stand corrected. Thank you, Member for Shortland. I well remember, after the election in Burrinjuck, Alby came into the party room and was tearing strips off Nick Minchin because a couple of his ministerial staff had handed out for Katrina Hodgkinson because they had a personal relationship with her and had worked with her in the office. He was furious at that. As everyone knows, Nick Minchin was a formidable political operator, but Alby Schultz did not take a backward step in confronting him.
I also remember that, a couple of years later, there had been a possible redistribution in the electorate of Macarthur. John Fahey was the member for Macarthur. He had been a former New South Wales Premier and was finance minister at the time. There was speculation in the paper about whether John Fahey would move to the seat of Hume. This was around 2000 to 2001. Alby, once again, was very much up for the fight. I remember that friends of mine from places like Yass regarded Alby as really one of them. They recognised Alby as a fighter. In my limited sample of three or four, they would definitely have preferred a fighter like Alby over someone of very high calibre such as John Fahey.
I well remember the pool accident that Alby had with the chemical fluid, which led to the loss of his eye. A school in his electorate would make eye patches, and every day Alby would wear a different eye patch to parliament. Before he had his prosthetic eye he did have very much the appearance of a pirate.
He was a quintessential local member—a very good local member. People I knew in Yass and Murrumbateman related to me that the personal attention that Alby would show to his constituents was legendary. I remember once that a couple were moving from Murrumbateman to Kingswood in my electorate of Boothby. Alby rang me up to say that they were coming to my electorate and to facilitate introductions. They were good people and would I look after them? He never ceased to amaze me with how good he was with those personal connections. By the same token, to gain Alby's approval was something that you felt you had earned. It was a very good thing.
There are a number of members on this side who, when the sitting hours were a bit different, would take the opportunity to get out of this place on Tuesday and have a lunch, most recently at Timmy's Kitchen in Manuka. Before that I think it used to be at Belluci's, still in Manuka, just down the road. I think the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection did touch on this group. Sadly, just in the last month two members of that group have died: Alby Schultz and also Don Randall, the member for Canning.
I always found Alby very straightforward. For about four years I had the job of doing the party room briefing to the media, and Alby would always take a great interest in what has been briefed and what had been leaked by others. I think he certainly approved of the way that I did that role and took an interest in what was going on.
Alby was a great member of the Liberal Party. He had enormous life experience before coming to parliament. I appreciate all the time that he gave me as a member and colleague and I do express my sincere condolences to Gloria and also to his family.
Before the member for Boothby leaves, will explain the reason I interjected on him. Alby Schultz and I were both members of the state parliament, and we both left the state parliament to run for election in 1998. It was a parliament where Bob Carr's Labor government had a majority of one, and at that time neither the opposition nor the government were too keen on having a by-election. So what happened, because we both wanted to stand for the federal election, was that those seats were not filled until the next election, in March. It was less than six months. So to some extent I would not be in this parliament if it was not for Alby Schultz and vice versa, I think. I apologise for interjecting. It was just that Alby and I both were elected in 1998 and there were no by-elections. After my history lesson, I will go to the point of this important notice of indulgence on the death of Alby John Schultz.
Alby was unique. He was the kind of member of parliament that you do not see so often these days. He did not go to the standard politics or member of parliament school. He was a person that had very strong points of view on many things—and very, very different to my own on just about everything—but I respected Alby because of the fact that he was so forthright, because you always knew exactly where you stood with Alby.
But you could work with him as well. One of the reasons I really wanted to speak in this debate was Professor John Forbes, who is a specialist in Newcastle. He has led the Australian and New Zealand breast cancer trials. Alby worked very hard in the area of raising funds for breast cancer, as did his wife, Gloria. We both came together to actually work to get Professor Forbes an Order of Australia. We got support from a lot of other people because people thought he was a pretty good guy, but there had been rumours that there had been a previous attempt and it had failed. When the two of us put together our information and sent it in, Professor Forbes was not awarded the Order of Australia; instead he was made an AM, which really attests to the quality of Professor Forbes. To me it demonstrates the passion that was Alby Schultz: the ability to reach across the parliament when he chose to work with the other side to achieve good outcomes.
I miss Alby. I miss his tenacious manner. I miss the fact that I cannot have a good argument with him—because we tended to argue a lot about things. But at the same time I had great respect for Alby. He really cared about his electorate. He really cared about each and every person in his electorate and, if they did not vote for him, it did not matter; he still cared about them. He was what I see as a really outstanding grassroots politician, a member that came to this place to represent his constituents and a member who did that each and every day that he stood here.
My condolences to his family—Gloria in particular, and the boys. I know that you must miss him very much. I am sure that the last little period of his life was quite a painful period, but Alby would have approached it with the same tenacity as he approached everything in his life.
I want to be associated with this condolence motion. I have been in the parliament for the whole of the time that Alby was with us. I very much admired him and also his wife, Gloria. It is to Gloria, Grant, Dean and his grandchildren that I want to speak, because he has had a remarkable career. He has not been the minister; he has not been the person who has led at the highest level; but he was the person who gave service, I think, beyond the call of duty.
And it was not just him; it was Gloria. I used to see them coming and going from this place. We have talked a lot about families recently. I think the Schultz family acknowledge the work of a family in public life. I often observe that a good local member is like a parson: you get two for the price of one. Gloria would drive him everywhere. She was out delivering the parcels in his constituency that he would often take to people in need. He was a remarkable member.
As noted by the previous speaker Alby was the member for Burrinjuck between 1988 and 1998, a 10-year term. He was 15 years with us, from 1998 to 2013. He had an unusual career. He had been a field officer of the Liberal Party and he had been a meat-processing consultant, but he had also been involved in local government. You can see how somebody like him would be equipped to undertake the role of a federal member in a rural seat.
I was interested in looking, again, at his maiden speech because it outlined, very fully, the nature of his electorate, one that contributed to the economy through agricultural, viticultural and horticultural industries, including wool, fat lambs, pigs, cattle, wheat, cherries, apples, stone fruits, timber and wine. This was the electorate he represented, here. He spoke about it. He informed us about it. He wanted people to be aware of the burdens. He wanted people to be aware of the need to understand the impact of fees and levies that can have an impact on demand for these sorts of products. He was a forceful advocate for his rural producers, as you would expect. He also took up other issues. If he had been here today he would have been talking about NBN Co. Then, he was talking about Telstra and the extent to which they were able to adequately serve rural Australia.
For me, what was particularly interesting was that he noted his own background was unusual. He was the son of a wool-store labourer. He came from a low-income working-class background. His grandfather on his mother's side was a personal friend of John Curtin's. An uncle had recently told him that his grandfather would turn in his grave knowing that he, Alby, was a Liberal member of parliament. He wanted to establish his family's bona fides and he wanted to assure members of the Labor Party that he was converted to our side of politics—at a very young age—because of extremely well-paid union officials. He likened them to some of those opposite. He noted that they had had him out on strike more times than he had worked. As a young slaughterman in the meat-processing industry he learned rapidly that people lining their pockets at the expense of the working classes were not only the employers but also the union officials. I thought they were extraordinary comments made by him, at that time, in the context of other matters that we were having to address.
He went on to say—as a member of the Liberal Party, which is the largest rural based political party in Australia—that he wanted to assure the House his politics differed from others. He saw rural people being represented as much by Liberals as by our friends in the National Party. I think they would acknowledge that he had some very strong views about that. I was certainly appraised of them.
I was not able to be at his funeral. I was overseas at the time. I felt very deeply about that because I noted, again, his own observations in his maiden speech. They are worth quoting. He said:
To my lovely wife, Gloria: thank you for your love, your quiet inner strength, your comfort and support, and for just being beside me; `the team', as we are known within the region, has been a close successful combination in everything we have done together all our married life.
He went on to note his two sons for their strong support and assistance.
This was a remarkable man, but it is a remarkable family. I have admired Gloria enormously and I wanted to be associated with this condolence motion just to say that.
One of the great myths we often hear peddled around by the chattering classes is that members of this parliament, especially members of this government, members on this side of the chamber, somehow generally lack life experience before they come to politics. Alby Schultz's background shows just what an absolute myth that is.
We know that Alby as a young kid worked at night-time selling newspapers to raise a few extra dollars for his family. We know that Alby's father, a World War II veteran, suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome—something that was not recognised back then—and that when Alby was 14 he left home because of the violence in his family household. Alby went and lived—and slept—under an old iron railway bridge, across the Murray River, at Echuca. That is Alby's background. He was taken in by a local family and given a job in an abattoir. The first job he had was sweeping out the waste and mess from the abattoir. You could not think of a more lowly beginning or lowly start in life, but that is the background that gave Alby his character. That is the strength he brought to this parliament: that determination to stand up; that understanding of the real issues of life.
On one occasion during the last parliament there was a debate about live-cattle exports. For many people in the city there is a disconnect between the food in our supermarkets and the fact that someone has to kill an animal along the way. I remember during this debate that everyone was getting upset about a poor cow that had been killed. Alby got up and said: 'What absolute rubbish! I remember, when I was a slaughterman, sometimes the stunning wouldn't kill them and you had to take a sledgehammer and belt them over the head,' and he did all the great actions. That was the life experience that he had. That is what made him such a great parliamentarian. That is what made him stand up against political correctness in this place.
For all of us in here, something that happens in our lives determines why we are sitting on one side of this parliament or the other. I would like to quote from Alby's speech about why he was a Liberal:
I am the son of a wool store labourer from a low-income working-class background. My grandfather on my mother's side was a personal friend of John Curtin. An uncle recently told me that my grandfather would turn in his grave, knowing I was a Liberal member of parliament—and he is absolutely right. Having established my family's Labor Party bona fides, I can assure members on the opposite side of the House that I was converted to conservative politics at a very young age because extremely well paid union officials, similar to those members opposite, had me out on strike more times than I worked. … As a young slaughterman in the meat-processing industry I learnt … that the only people lining their pockets at the expense of the working class were not the employers but the union officials on executive levels of pay driving company cars.
Those were the words of Alby Schultz, in his maiden speech, about why he followed Liberal Party values. When I first came to the parliament, it was a rather overwhelming experience. And Alby was one of those existing members who took me under his wing, talked to me and made sure I was comfortable. I remember Alby showing me all the stationery that he had ever had printed and saying, 'This is what I have done.' He said something along the lines of: 'What I do isn't right but you might be able to learn or pick up one little point from these documents.' And I did. He was a great man to sit next to in the chamber on the opposite side during the previous parliament.
Alby gave a very emotional valedictory speech when he was suffering from cancer. We knew that he did not have much time left. In fact, there was a chance that he might not have been able to give that speech. But apparently he wrote two valedictory speeches—and I quote from the valedictory speech that he gave:
This valedictory speech that I am going to read to you tonight is the second valedictory speech I have written over the past six or eight weeks. I wrote one, and my wife read it and she said to me, 'You're not seriously going to bring that into the chamber, are you?' She said, 'You really do have to write something a little bit softer than that, love.' So I have succumbed to that wise counsel from my wife, as I have done for … the 51 years that we have been married, and I have written something a little bit different to what I would normally put pen to.
So somewhere out there in Cootamundra, in the electorate of Hume, lies that original valedictory speech. And I would suggest that we should find it, frame it—
Table it!
table it—or perhaps hang it up in our party room to see exactly what Alby thought! As I said, we know that Alby was not one for political correctness. But, even in that valedictory speech, he brought up something that I know was of great concern to him—the appalling waste of our limited and precious resources on wind turbines. I again quote from Alby's valedictory speech:
Wind turbines have cost the electricity consumer approximately $2.25 billion from 1 January 2011 to 30 March 2013. That is $1 billion per year—think about what that could be used for in our communities.
And Alby was right. He understood. He wanted to do the very best he could for the communities he represented.
I think sometimes in the cities we get a little bit disconnected from the lives our country cousins live. I travelled to Alby's funeral down in Cootamundra. I remember driving through the town of Harden, which is part of Alby's patch. The shops there were closed down. There is probably less prosperity in that town today than there was 100 years ago. We talk about the housing affordability crisis in our cities, but in the window of the real estate agent in Harden I saw a three-bedroom brick house on a large block of land for sale for $210,000. These were the people that Alby Schultz represented in parliament. These are the people that he stood up for. I will miss Alby. He was a good friend. May he rest in peace.
Mr Deputy Speaker Hawke, it is a little fortuitous that I rise to speak on the death of Albert John Schultz in the presence of you and the member for Hughes, as we all used to sit as quiet as church mice, at the back over there, side by side behind one Albert John Schultz. A lot will be said about Alby Schultz—that he was rough and tough, that he knew what he wanted, that he was fire and brimstone and all that. But he knew this place, and he could pick things before anyone else could. You would be sitting there and someone at the dispatch box on the government side would say something, and Alby would say: 'Watch Joel. He's going to go and talk to Laurie Ferguson. And then he is going to have to talk to Chris Hayes because this is what has happened'—he would be able to tell you exactly what was going on. And then Joel Fitzgibbon, member for Hunter and Chief Government Whip, would get up and do exactly those things. We would watch those things happen and we would sit back in awe.
A story I will forever tell about Alby Schultz is that I was the first member of the class of 2010 who was mentioned, warned and then punted by the then Speaker, Harry Jenkins—and it was Alby's fault. Soon after the election, Alby was in question time and I had been warned for interjecting. I said something that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, had told me to yell out, I am pretty sure—certainly it would not have been up to me!—
Order! The member will not reflect on anyone!
Alby turned to me and said, 'Listen, mate. I'm going to ask a question about this money that Labor has promised for the hospital. They're going to say that they didn't promise it. I want you to hold up the front page of the Post to show that they made the promise.' I said, 'No worries, mate. Will I get into trouble for this?' He said, 'No. Don't worry about it.' So he asked the question and I held it up. Harry Jenkins, the then Speaker, looked up and said, 'The member for Herbert shall leave under 94(a).' I turned to Alby and said, 'What do I do?' He said, 'You have to go, mate.' I said, 'What happened here?' He said, 'Just don't make eye contact with me'—which was reasonably funny because I was on his blind side anyway.
There is a special place for the vitriol he sent to the Labor benches, but there was a special level of chat that went towards our friends and cousins in the National Party, and especially towards the crossbenchers. He was merciless in his words to Messrs Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor, but, to their credit, every time you went out and came back in, either Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott or Bob Katter would be sitting there having a chat to Alby. It was like a traditional football game in that, during the heat of battle in here, it was full on; but, with Alby, outside of here it was just the same. He gave no quarter and expected no quarter. In the party room, he was pretty much like that as well. His refrain was: 'We are the party of prime ministers.' He had a special place in his heart for that ideal. He wanted to make sure that it kept rubbing off on everyone in that Liberal party room and that we understood exactly where he was coming from. He asked for no quarter. He was fearless, ruthless and fun toward everyone there.
It was his turn of phrase that always got to me. I am a man who has been known to crack a joke and that sort of thing. I am pretty much the 'pull my finger' kind of guy, but Alby Schultz was very clever. When we were discussing the carbon tax, we were asking questions because the then Labor Northern Territory government was against the carbon tax and the then Victorian Labor government was against the carbon tax. The question was being asked repeatedly: 'Could you name a Premier who is in favour of Australia adopting a world-beating carbon tax?' The voice came from the back: 'Hu Jintao'—the Premier of China! It was just one of those moments. No-one else saw it coming except for Alby. It was just an absolute cracker.
We will hear during this debate about Alby's eye—how he lost it in an acid accident and how he dived into the pool and the thing was out in his hand before he came up. In relation to that, I want to talk about how he was not only a political warrior but also a great bloke. My family came to Canberra for my maiden speech, we were at a Chinese takeaway restaurant and Alby Schultz came in. My son was particularly interested in his glass eye. Whilst my daughter, Abbie, was pretty much horrified that this man had a glass eye, Andrew was completely and utterly besotted by the story of how he had lost his eye. You could see what a great parent and, especially, what a great grandparent he must have been, given the amount of time he gave us and the softness of his voice in his approach to my wife and my children. He was an absolute gentleman in that regard.
You cannot mention Alby Schultz without talking about his wife, Gloria. Whilst a lot has been made about Gloria—that you got two for the price of one; I do not think there is a married person in this place for whom you do not get two for one—Gloria was a bit special. Senator Ian Macdonald will always tell the story about when he was trying to get elected in 1990, well before Alby was in this place, and Alby had rung up from Cootamundra and said, 'I'll come up and help.' He and Gloria drove at their own expense and stayed in a motel at their own expense to help Ian Macdonald in the campaign that got him elected in 1990. That is the measure of the person. It is not so much what we do in this place; it is the stuff you do behind the scenes that really stands out for you. Like the member for Hughes said, Alby would always bring in stuff that he would distribute in the electorate. He would never tell you that it was right; he would always just say, 'Have a look at it; have a read of it. If there's something there that you can use, that would be great.' That was the making of the man. That is what I believe.
The other thing with Alby is that, just because you were a friend of his, it did not stop him of giving you a full and frank character assessment if you stepped over the line. Whilst I was never a recipient of the poke in the chest, I was not too far away on a couple of occasions. He did say that what he wanted was very serious and that what we were trying to do here was very serious. I cannot claim to be close to him, but to know Alby and Gloria was to understand the passion with which he represented his family, his workmates, his council, his state and his country. Peter FitzSimons has been in the papers lately. To paraphrase him: politics does not build character; it reveals character. Vale, Alby Schultz. You are already missed, mate. We really need you back. Cheers.
I acknowledge the very genuine contribution of the member who has just spoken. I am really pleased to be able to stand and talk tonight on this motion of condolence for Alby Schultz. Much has been said about Alby—all of it genuinely true. He was one of the true characters of the Australian parliament.
When I first entered parliament in 2007, Alby took one look at me, sat down and had a yarn about the fact that I was a farmer. He was one of the few people who probably saw being a farmer as a real positive. As a farmer, it is amazing how many people you meet who, perhaps, see you as some sort of second-class citizen. But not Alby. From day one, Alby sat down and had a yarn. He was particularly supportive of the rural sector. You were never in any doubt as to what Alby thought. He shared a particularly close relationship with Wilson Tuckey. Alby and Wilson were of the same generation, in a sense, and of the same historic school of thought.
Not a day goes by that I do not miss being in that party room.
There you go: not a day goes by, as the member says, that he does not miss being in that party room with both of those gentleman. And of course it was always very straightforward and very genuine. But their passion and commitment to rural, regional and remote areas, to farmers and to regional economies was second to none. They encouraged us all to stand up for what we really believe in in rural and regional Australia. I think Wilson would really like me to acknowledge not only his relationship with Alby but some of the good work they did as part of the agricultural committee. When you think about the fact that Alby came in in 1998 and served right through to 2013—a 25-year career—that is an extraordinary effort.
Alby served his community; he served the farming and rural sector. But you always knew Alby loved his wife; none of us were in any doubt of that. He loved his wife—Glo, as he called her—and he spoke so beautifully of her. Anyone who thought Alby was a hard nut—and he was—only had to listen to him talk about Glo to know that he loved Glo in a way that only those who are part of a couple who are married for probably around 53 years can love each other. They shared a wonderful partnership. To Glo, and to Dean and Grant and their five grandchildren and their daughters-in-law, we in this place really want to offer our sincere sympathy to you all and our condolences on the loss of Alby. And yes, I know that you would have known this was coming and prepared for it, but nothing prepares you for actually losing someone, no matter how much you share their journey and you know their time is coming—nothing. Nothing prepares you for actually losing them or for the day after, when you can no longer have that last word, when you can no longer say hello or goodbye, when there is no more. So, to Glo and all the family, our condolences to you. I really hope the support you have given each other through Alby's illness and since losing Alby continues, and from your friends and family. And, knowing Alby, you have plenty of friends and certainly a very close family.
Alby would talk about his lost eye. One day he said to me, 'I'm not one-eyed in just one sense; I'm one-eyed in every sense'—meaning he was a one-eyed Liberal. And he was never backward in letting you know that—the strong and fearless character that we knew Alby to be. But what I respected so much about Alby was that he was an absolutely fearless advocate for rural and regional Australians and farmers. We need more Albys, because it is very difficult for us to get our voices heard. We are a diminishing number of representatives in this place, and we are a diminishing number of Australians, in a sense. Our history has changed the role of farmers. Our farmers still manage the majority of the land. They are still family owned and run businesses. And they bear the brunt of weather and circumstances and the volatility of prices. But they are the salt of the earth, and that is what Alby was, which is why he could represent them so well. Even if you did not agree with Alby, you could never question his genuine commitment. I think that is what everybody in his electorate saw from him and Glo and the work they put in when there were hardships—delivering food parcels and support parcels to people throughout their community and simply being on the ground with people who were doing it tough.
And of course Alby, being the meatworker he was, could talk to anyone. He did not really mind whether it was someone who was very well educated—perhaps far better educated than Alby was—or whether it was the bloke with the shovel: Alby treated them the same way, and he was a genuine bloke. He had friends on both sides of this place. Another person, who is not here now, who was a friend of Alby's was Dick Adams. They did a lot of work together on the committee, along with the likes of Wilson Tuckey. All of those gentlemen were very genuine in what they were there to do, and I know Alby had friendships on both sides of the House.
When I looked at Alby's valedictory speech, one of the things he talked about was:
… 'The Team',—
He called it 'The Team'—
which Glo and I committed to in my first slogan: `You get two for the price of one.' Little did I know that she was a bigger draw card for my ongoing success at the ballot box than I was!
That commitment was to all constituents. Alby never pretended to be all things to all people, but he certainly understood that Glo was one of the greatest benefits he had, and he certainly loved her very much.
I went and had a look at Alby's maiden speech in the local news at the time. He said:
In short, rural producers, despite their best efforts to maintain their well-earned reputations as the most productive farmers in the world, are reeling from one setback to another, much of it outside their control.
When you consider that this was his maiden speech 27 or 28 years ago, the question has to be asked: for rural and regional, nothing much as changed, has it? The article went on to say that Mr Schultz did not 'subscribe to political correctness'. That's a shock, isn't it! Alby did not subscribe to political correctness. Well, if anybody in this House has any doubt about that, I do not have any doubt, because I was on the receiving end on a regular basis. He said:
I intend to defend the mainstream family values which have been pushed aside for political expediency; and I will never compromise my principles, honesty and integrity, no matter the cost. I seek no favours and I ask only that my rural constituency be given a `fair go'.
I say to Alby's rural constituency of Hume: Alby did exactly that in his time here in this parliament, and I think every one of his constituents knew that. Even if they did not agree with him, they knew Alby was out there batting for them.
My final word goes to his family—Gloria, his two sons, his daughters-in-law and his five grandchildren. We express our deepest sympathy to you and our condolences on the loss of Alby. He certainly will be missed. He was very proud of Angus. He recruited Angus and he saw Angus as a suitable replacement. The gesture that I remember Alby doing—and I do not know if other members in the House remember—was having his arms crossed. You would have to just deal with Alby when he had his arms crossed. He was always a very genuine Australian. He had no fear and he represented his electorate very well. I offer my condolences to his family. I know that he will be sadly missed.
I have to say that it has been a sad couple of weeks in this place. We recognised the loss of Don Randall last week and now we are recognising the loss of another of our colleagues, Alby Schultz. There was a certain amount of similarity between Alby and Don, in that both were quite happy to call it the way they saw it and they were both very strong advocates for their constituents and very good grassroots campaigners.
I first met Alby when I came to this place in 2004. Alby was a very interesting looking character in those days because he had the black eyepatch on. He had recently lost his eye due to a swimming pool acid accident. He told me that as soon as he got the acid in his eyes he shouted and Gloria came and got the hose on him. He said, 'How does it look?' She said, 'You have one eye popping out a bit.' He said: 'Forget about that one. It's gone. Do the other one.' He went on to say that Gloria blasted the hose at his eye and he felt it going around behind the eyeball itself. He was actually comparatively annoyed with her for blasting it so hard but he said in retrospect that she had actually saved his eye. When I first knew him Alby would have been a very suitable character, in terms of appearance, for one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. He would have fitted the part very well.
The member for Forrest spoke about Alby's bipartisanship. It was probably just as well she was talking about bipartisanship because Alby was not particularly forgiving about us being in a coalition. He had a very strong view of the National Party—he certainly was not a coalitionist. He had some very strong things to say during Liberal party room meetings, let me tell you.
Another thing that I thought was great about Alby was that he was very forthcoming with his opinion. Quite frankly, there are too many who are not forthcoming with their opinion when it runs counter to what any particular group might think. There was mention of Alby being not politically correct, and that is exactly correct. It is one of the things that I very much respected about Alby because it takes guts to run against the crowd.
Sometimes Alby's dislike of the Nats would colour his judgement. If there is one particular piece of colouring of judgement that Alby regretted ever after was when we got the news that Rob Oakeshott had just won Lyne as an Independent and Alby said, 'That Rob Oakeshott is not a bad bloke.' I think that the only basis for that was that he had beaten a Nat, and I think he really came to regret that statement afterwards.
Alby represented in this place a significantly broad diversity, having coming from a background as a meat worker and not having had anything like a privileged background. This is something that we are starting to lose too much of in this place. We are getting too many professional politicians, where politics has been the lifeblood that people have had ever since school days, then going through university, then becoming staffers and then becoming politicians. There is too much of that and Alby was very much the antithesis of that. Alby was someone who had worked very hard for a living and then he came to work in this place to do what he saw was in the best interests of his constituents. He used those significant life experiences that he had.
Alby had some views that I agreed with. He was against the hard renewable energy targets and saw them as hugely costly to people in terms of the price that they paid for electricity. He was also no lover of wind farms. He felt very personally affronted by the fact that he had a very large wind farm imposed on his electorate of Hume. In my view, like Alby's, you have to have a situation where electricity is affordable and your alternatives are affordable. Alby was very much against people having to pay large amounts of money for other people's ideology. He was also an anthropogenic global-warming sceptic, which is something that I agree with, as people here would know.
He was an extremely strong local member and, as I have said, when people talk of white-bread politicians, Alby was anything but. He certainly made his presence known. There are quite a few people on our side of politics who came to know it—never mind those sitting on the opposition benches. One of the things that has not been brought up enough in this place and one thing he felt particularly strongly about and fought for was—and it is something that I mentioned in my first speech—the issue of fathers who had separated from their wives having to pay child support, as well as the access they had to their children and the very significant health problems they suffered. Indeed, as Alby would point out, significant numbers of those men—lonely, with no or completely inadequate access to their children, having to pay out a fortune so they were left very short of money and then committing suicide. Alby fought very hard for them, and I was very pleased with some of the changes that we managed to initiate while in government in 2006 to bring about the view that parenting post separation should be a mutual obligation—that there be a 50-50 shared parenting presumption, not the immediate presumption that the ex-wife got the custody and the ex-husband was meted out scraps of access. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area, and that is something that Alby was championing in this parliament right until the time he left.
What has been said is that Alby was very committed to his family, and that is something we all knew only too well. He certainly spoke of Gloria a lot and he saw them as a very strong team, and indeed they were. To Gloria and the family, I would like to express my deep sympathy for the loss of Alby. Alby is someone that I will miss, and this place will miss greatly.
I stand today to pay tribute to Alby Schultz, a great man of conviction who always had his family and his community at heart. I came to this parliament in 2010 and I really appreciated Alby's friendship, his company, his advice and the mentoring he gave me when I first arrived here—it was a hung parliament. It was invaluable for me to go forward as a federal politician. I have to say that I did not share his views on the Nationals, but obviously I have never been caught up in a three-cornered contest. I have a lot of friends in the Nationals, and we are a coalition.
Alby retired from his 33-year career in politics in 2013, following a diagnosis with liver cancer. Alby was a towering figure in the federal parliament. He commanded as much admiration and respect in this chamber as he did in his community. Alby was a true conviction politician and always spoke from the heart. He stood up for what he believed in, even if it brought the wrath of the powers that be. He was a tenacious man with a fearless heart and he will be sorely missed.
We have heard many warmly remembered stories of Alby's days in this chamber as one of the federal parliament's great characters. Whether friend or foe, Alby touched the hearts of many here. Alby's passing was a devastating loss to the Hume community and to this place. My thoughts and prayers are with Alby's wife Glo, and their family. I was privileged to know Alby through our shared community of the Wollondilly Shire, which both Hume and Macarthur border. He was a formidable neighbour to have; he was much loved and respected in the community, as is Glo, his lovely wife, and their two sons, Grant and Dean.
One of the most poignant memories I have of Alby is the work he did during the droughts, where he and Gloria personally collected and delivered drought relief packages to farmers in his electorate.
Alby was also a fierce advocate for the Lone Fathers Association, as he saw the impact firsthand: the pressure that drought placed on farming families, the separations and family breakups that all too often followed. Alby was committed to helping families through this, particularly fathers, who after the stress of losing a farm, also lost their families. I distinctly remember a story that demonstrated to me Alby and Glo's love and commitment to their community: they received a call from a worried relative that a young man in the community was considering suicide. It was 2am, and they both jumped in the car and drove to this young man's house and stayed with him until he was okay. That was their compassion and dedication to their community, and they shared it together.
Alby was a fighter in politics and in life. He never gave up—whether it was helping a local farmer, assisting a family or, indeed, his own health. He held on until the very end with great dignity. Alby had a long and difficult battle with cancer; however, his focus was still squarely on his family and his community. Just weeks before his passing, he was passionately advocating to help men with prostate cancer.
I have always been a great admirer of Alby. He started his working life as a meatworker, working his way up into management. However, he never once forgot his origins as a working man. He was, as my colleagues before me have said, as comfortable in an abattoir as he was in the corridors of power. That character in him touches me deeply. Starting his political career in local government as a councillor on Cootamundra Shire Council, Alby quickly rose in politics, winning the 1988 election to become the New South Wales state member for Burrinjuck Alby served in the New South Wales parliament for 10 years before being elected to represent Hume in 1998.
I was reading through Alby's maiden speech today, when contemplating this speech, and two paragraphs stood out and sum up who I believe Alby to be as a man and a politician. I quote the great man, Alby Schultz:
I am simply saying that I do not subscribe to political correctness. I intend to defend the mainstream family values which have been pushed aside for political expediency; and I will never compromise my principles, honesty and integrity, no matter the cost.
Alby went on to say:
I seek no favours and I ask only that my rural constituency be given a 'fair go'. Should there be any occasions during my time in this place when my constituents are penalised because of any action undertaken by me on their behalf, then I will vigorously respond on their behalf accordingly.
Alby was just that. He was a fierce advocate and defender of the family, but, importantly, he fought tooth and nail for families in the bush and regional Australia.
Alby was never one to walk away from a task that was too hard, or one that might get him out of favour with the government, and even at times with his own party. Alby never sought to gain national fame or attention, however he certainly received it in the lead-up to the privatisation of Telstra when he was a vocal critic of the Howard government's plans as he was gravely concerned about the impacts on families in the bush. More recently, Alby was a staunch advocate for rural families suffering from the health effects created by nearby wind farms. When no-one else would go near the topic, Alby met with families, did research and looked into the issue then advocated strongly for the victims. His actions have helped to keep discussions about the possible health impacts of wind farms on the national agenda. I am sure he will be looking down to see what occurs in the future.
As strong a warrior as Alby was, he also had a gentle heart and a huge soft spot for his five grandchildren, of whom he would speak often. They were the apple of his eye and he was immensely proud of them. Alby was also very close to his two sons Grant and Dean, who he always referred to as mates rather than sons, and he cherished his two lovely daughters in law.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people in my electorate of Macarthur have fond memories of Alby and Glo—because when you got Alby, you can be sure that you got Glo as well. Together they were a great and formidable team—Alby and Glo. I can remember on a couple of occasions in my electorate when I first got elected some people said, 'We are here to see you, Glo—Alby, you be quiet!' It is with great sadness that we say vale Alby, who was truly an inspirational man. I look up to Alby in many ways, particularly for his tenacity, or, as he would put it, being a tough old bugger. Nothing could stop Alby when he was on the warpath—well, to be honest, only Glo. Gloria was the steady hand for Alby, always supporting him, always helping and always at his side. I would like to pass on my condolences to Alby's wife Glo, their two sons Grant and Dean and their wives, and Alby's five grandchildren. His passing has left a gaping hole in their hearts as it has in the Hume community and in the hearts of all Australians.
I rise to speak of a man who was a friend, a colleague and someone who is greatly missed. I first met Alby Schultz when I became vice-president and then president of the Liberal Party of New South Wales. Alby worked for me as a field officer—a field officer who understood what it meant to connect with people in order to get a political message across. He was by far the most effective field officer I had. It was no surprise that he was then preselected to become the candidate for the seat of Burrinjuck—a seat that had almost been a Labor fiefdom, having been held by a particular Labor family for a long period of time. Alby went into that contest fully in the knowledge of the people of Burrinjuck because he had connected with them when he was working as a field officer. He was elected and he served in that seat in the state parliament for 10 years. He was part of the great Nick Greiner election in 1988. For various reasons the seat of Hume became one the Liberal Party could contest, and Alby sought preselection. He was successful, and he then fought a strong election and was successful in becoming the member for Hume.
We have heard time and again in these speeches about Alby's life and about his service that he had humble beginnings, that he had worked as a slaughterman. He went on to get a Diploma in Meat Industry Management from the University of New South Wales, and he was a meat processing industry consultant from 1953 to 1984. He had seen that education could expand his knowledge and his ability and improve the way in which he could work. I have to say of Alby that he was a man who was just as much at home in the working environment of any workplace as he was aboard that luxurious liner the world. He was a man who was natural because he was honest in his opinions and his approach. But he was an enormously loving family man. Gloria—'Glo' as she is affectionately called—is a wonderful woman. The two of them loved each other with a passion. Glo, too, served as an endorsed candidate in a state election, and that was far from a pleasant experience. But they stuck together and they fought it well.
Alby's children Grant and Dean were adored by him, as were his grandchildren. He believed in family values, as we have heard others say. He was also a man who sought to ensure that the things that he believed in he carried out in his life. He understood the importance of the individual and opportunities for individuals to reach their maximum potential. He lived his life in this way. He was a man who could deal with adversity when it came in such an unfair way, first with the accident with the pool chlorine when he lost his eye. The courage that he showed in dealing with that and making it a new persona—the wearing of the black patch, the connection with children—was an inspiration to so many. But it was the unfair cancer that finally took him from us. He fought it with every fibre in his body, and he and Gloria together had a strength that enabled him to live several years when people said he only had months.
Alby was someone who would not stand for being unfairly treated. I remember well when he was passed over for the chairmanship of a committee when he thought he should not have been—and others shared that view, including those across the aisles and those sitting beside him. The net result was that, when the nominations for the chairmanship of that committee were called for, it was not the one that had been directed from on high but Alby, who was supported by the committee in total, who was elected as chairman of that committee. It was unfair that he had been passed over, and his resilience and his ability to persuade other people—or because other people saw that it was unfair—ensured that the support went to him. He chaired that committee, and chaired it damn well.
Alby's passion and tenacity on a subject, once he got his teeth into it, was legendary. He was one of those who are standing up strongly for those in their electorates who are adversely affected by windmills, by so-called wind farms. When he was looking for someone to take his place in this chamber, to become the new member for Hume, it was these things that he looked for in that replacement, and he was enormously proud to have Angus Taylor become the endorsed candidate.
Friendships develop over long periods of time. As I said, I first met Alby in the mid-eighties—1985 is when I became very close to him. It is a friendship that endured. It is a friendship that I enjoyed with a glow, a friendship that in a way goes beyond earthly ties. Memories of that friendship stay with one and enhance one's friendships with those who loved him and those who knew him in a way that can only be said to enrich one's life.
Gloria Schultz, Grant Schultz and Dean Schultz, you are missing a wonderful member of your family, but the love he bestowed on you, and you in turn bestowed on him, is an example to us all. I am lucky to have known him as a friend and I recognise that this chamber is the poorer for his no longer being here with us. Vale, Alby Schultz.
I want to make only a few brief comments. I feel privileged that I knew and served with Alby Schultz. At a time when people lament the bland nature of politicians, Alby was not that—and he was not from a bygone era. He was there in the Howard times and of course also in the previous parliament. So he was not from some time way, way back that people look back at through rose-coloured glasses. This was a bloke with passion. This was a bloke with beliefs. This was a bloke that lived those passions through compassion.
It is probably not something that a lot of people have spoken about here, but he would pull you aside—sometimes when I was a minister, as well as at other times—and tell you what he thought of the job you were doing. He would be frank, but you could tell from his conversation that it came from a belief system about what was good for humanity. It did not matter whether it was about his electorate or whether it was about something in my area of either Indigenous affairs or disabilities; there was always a passion mixed with compassion.
We all regale each other with stories about the great Alby shaking his head and storming out of meetings, about him telling the Prime Minister what he thought of him and about his colourful turn of phrase. But, if you distil all that into what people want from their elected representatives—that is, they want to know that their representatives are real people with lived experience and that they are willing to put something of themselves into what they do—Alby Schultz encapsulated that in everything he did.
I did not know him as a state parliamentarian, but you can see from the results he achieved in the polls that he was one with his electorate, and all 150 of us, regardless of political persuasion, should want to be as much one with our constituents, to know what they are feeling and to be able to articulate that here without fear or favour. That is what makes a genuinely good local member, and local members are what we are, after all. We are all, first and foremost, private members of parliament.
There are many lessons that every member of parliament, present and future, could take from the passing of Don Randall and Alby Schultz—members who did not just give to their electorates but worked with their electorates, who were passionate and compassionate about what they believed in and had no self-interest. It was not about where they were going but about what they could do for others. It is such personalities that give a rich vein to the Australian parliament. It is those rich backgrounds of lived experience without which you cannot represent the Australian population and have a broad cross-section of the Australian population's viewpoints focused on in this place. Alby brought that here without fear or favour. For all of us here, it was a privilege to know him.
We all know that he suffered great illness. Before that, of course, he had that awful accident with the pool acid, but he never once seemed to feel sorry for himself. He just took it in his stride: 'Yep, I was lucky I didn't lose my other eye,' and, 'What a silly thing for me to do.' Boy, there is a lot for us to learn.
We give thanks for the life of Alby Schultz, for his contribution to public life and for the wonderful contribution he made to the people that he loved, literally, in his electorate and that he stood up for. He spoke on behalf of those who did not have a voice. We say thank you and we thank his family for the commitment that they showed him and the contribution that they made. We are all the better for having been part of the life of Alby Schultz. May he rest in peace.
Like the member for Fisher I also will be quite brief. Like the member for Fisher, I did not know Alby in his life as a state member. Most of the association that I would like to refer to, because so much has been said about him now, is the heartburn and the trauma that he constantly created when as the Chief Opposition Whip I tried to manage Alby on a daily basis down here. He was quite amazing. If something was happening that Alby did not agree with, you knew about it and you knew about it very quickly. As many people have said here, he was passionate about his electorate. He was absolutely, totally committed to his electorate. The only commitment greater than that was of course to Glo, to the boys and to his family, which he held on the highest pedestal. I guess from his background you could expect that.
There were some very interesting scenarios in the party room. We have spoken about shirt fronting and expressing his passion, if you like, for a particular point of view, but there was a softer side to Alby. When he had the patch after that accident, he actually had children painting different coloured patches. There was a bit of a competition in his electorate. He would get kids to paint different things on patches. He would wear these different patches on his eye. I have to say—and I often reflected on this to Alby—that he was well suited to the patch and, of course, the fact that he had lost an eye because he was so one-eyed on almost everything that he did. There was no middle ground.
We had some confrontations. He was well known for his views towards our coalition friends in the National Party and at one stage he almost created a riot when he demanded of me as the whip that every week we have a Liberal Party party room meeting—not once a fortnight but every week—because Alby wanted the opportunity to stand up and give our coalition friends a blast. We had to abide by that request because Alby was making all sorts of threats about what he would do.
I was just looking here at my diary and saw that 29 May was Alby's birthday. As I have done for quite a few years, I rang Alby on 29 May and sang him happy birthday. I was rather saddened this time because I actually rang him on 29 May and did not get him, but I sang nevertheless to wish him a happy birthday. At that stage I was not aware that he was as ill as he was. Nevertheless, I got the satisfaction of doing that.
His protege, who sits beside me, is Angus Taylor. When Alby decided that Angus was the man that he was going to hand over the reins to he came down here and was as proud as punch. He would tell anybody who had a moment to listen—and even those who did not want to listen—that he had found the perfect candidate. As a mentor for a candidate Alby was extraordinary. You would have almost thought that Angus was part of the family. He was so proud. He was so convinced that Angus was going to win that seat and he was so proud when Angus did so. I have got no doubt at all that it was the bit about the windmills. He certainly found a similar view in that area.
The colour and the character of this place are defined by individuals like Alby. It is sad that we do not get enough people like him. Sometimes they are a little bit difficult to manage and sometimes we can be a little bit embarrassed by them, but I have to say to you that the passion he had for his electorate, the passion he had for his job and the passion that he had for his family are the sorts of attributes that we can only aspire to.
With those few words I would like to wish all my love and my best to Glo and the family as they continue to deal with this sad loss. To my old mate who was a bit of a sparring partner, Alby Schultz: we certainly loved you while you were here and we certainly miss your colour. I can assure you that he will never be forgotten.
Alby John Schultz would be horrified because it appears as though the last say on the condolence motion is going to go to a National Party member wearing a National Party tie—country Party tie indeed!. But I think Alby would also see the humour in it because he was a man of humour. There was a funny thing at his funeral, if you can call it funny. There was this wonderful slide show of Alby. It covered his life. There were some tremendous pictures of Alby doing what he did best—that is, being the local member for Hume. They were wonderful pictures, fantastic images, of Alby with schoolchildren, of Alby with his beloved family and of Alby fiercely representing his electorate of Hume and the state seat of Burrinjuck, which he held from 1988 to 1998, and also as a councillor with the Cootamundra Shire Council.
Right at the very end of the loop, which played over and over again, was a picture, believe it or not, of the wind turbines at the wind farm in his electorate. During the service I leant over my wife, Catherine, who was sitting beside me, to Craig Kelly and we mused over this image which kept appearing over and over again. I said, 'That's the funny side of Alby.' The member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, said, 'Yes, but if you actually look closely at that image I think down in the corner is Alby taking to that wind turbine with an angle grinder,' because Alby could not stand wind turbines.
He was fiercely proud of his electorate. At the risk of saying that the Prime Minister was wrong, because that is career limiting, I will take him up on a point which he made in his speech on this condolence motion, which started things off on 12 August. He said that Alby's successor had to have two prerequisites. The Prime Minister said, first, he or she had to be a potential cabinet minister and, second, he or she could not be a member of the National Party under any circumstances. In the Hansard it says: 'Honourable members interjecting'. I was one of those honourable members interjecting on my Prime Minister, because I think the Prime Minister actually got it wrong. I think the two prerequisites should have been the other way round. The first prerequisite was surely the fact that Alby's successor could not be a member of the National Party. That was certainly No. 1. Perhaps No. 2 was the fact that, as the Prime Minister said in his wonderful eulogy on 21 July, his successor needed to be able to go a long way in public life. I am sure that Angus Taylor will certainly do just that. Alby was justifiably proud of Angus and justifiably pleased with the fact that Angus was not a National Party member.
One of my favourite stories is when Angus had been preselected. There was a comment made by one of my colleagues—indeed, it was Senator Fiona Nash—about certain things. I was unaware of these comments, which were quite well publicised at the time. We had our usual Thursday morning tea in, as it was, the opposition lobby room—just out there. I walked in and Alby fronted me. You could tell he was hostile. You could tell he was angry. He came up and all but shirt-fronted me. He was going on about 'my colleague who said this; my colleague who said that'. I had no idea what he was talking about. I hadn't actually read the article. I hadn't heard the comments. I said: 'Well, Alby, if it is a colleague of mine then surely it has got to be a colleague of yours.' 'It's no colleague of mine!' he thundered. 'It's no colleague. It's a National Party member.' I said: 'As I will say again, Alby, in case you've forgotten: we are in a coalition. The Liberals and the National Party are in a coalition.' Alby again stormed at me, 'It's not a colleague of mine,' and with that he took a step towards me. I thought, 'Well, I can either end up copping it from Alby for the rest of my parliamentary career and I can back off, or I can also take a step forward.' So, me being me, I took a step forward and I ended up nose to nose with Alby Schultz. It was like that famous State of Origin Rugby League picture. For a moment, I actually thought it was going to be like a State of Origin Queensland versus New South Wales match during the early settling down period where blows are traded. Here I am nose to nose with Alby. In the back of my mind I am thinking, 'This is not such a good place to be.' It was John Cobb, the member for Calare, who came and sort of separated us. I could actually see out to the back of the lobby where Labor members were also assembling and doing what they always did in their tactics meeting, and they were looking in. They could hear us going toe to toe, arguing.
Later on that morning Alby apologised, because word had got back to then opposition leader Tony Abbott that there had been words exchanged at the morning tea and that perhaps it was not such a good thing for the coalition spirit that this had taken place. Alby rang to apologise, but he said it in such a way that you knew he was doing it through gritted teeth. I said: 'Alby, you and I have been mates for years. We're both passionate people. In the heat of the moment, we both said things that perhaps could have been better left unsaid. But, look, we're in a robust debate. We're both adults. You don't need to apologise to me, Alby. It's all good.'
That was May 2012. Fast forward to December 2012. It was the last parliamentary sitting week. I had put in a motion of disallowance on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This was not well received within the Liberal Party. Indeed, it was probably not well received within the National Party. It was going against not so much the policy; rather, it was being viewed that we needed to have made Labor and its failings the focus of the week and not the fact that we were divided over the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which had been a coalition policy since 2007, when it was put forward by then water minister Malcolm Turnbull.
I had moved my Murray-Darling Basin motion, and it came down to the vote. It was the very last thing that we were doing in the parliamentary sitting year. You need five speakers to get the whips to count the vote—and here we were. We had the member for Melbourne sitting right up the back there. He had a completely different, opposite, view to mine. He wanted more water for the environment; I wanted less. We had the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, sitting down with us. At the time, he was not at all enamoured with me. I had my good mate the member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone, who had seconded my motion. And there was Alby, sitting right beside us. Everyone else—Labor, Liberal and one or two Nats—were over on the other side. The motion was lost. It was 95 to five, or whatever the vote might have been. It was of that proportion, anyway. And so parliament retired for the year. I caught up with Alby just up here. I said, 'Look, Alby, please give my love to Gloria'—because I have always had a soft spot for Gloria—and we shook hands. I said, 'Alby, I have to ask you: why did you side with me? I can't understand it, given we're sort of argy-bargy on most things and, at the end of the day, I am a Nat and you are a Lib and you don't like my party.' He said, 'You know, I can't stand the Nats. That's a long-held view, but there is something about you I like. You've got a bit of spirit. You've got a bit spunk about you. Keep it up.' I think that was Alby's way of saying: I accept you.
I have to say that, in February 2012, when Warren Truss was sent out for the first time in his long and distinguished parliamentary career by then Speaker Peter Slipper, I led a Nats walk out—so disgusted were we that Warren had been thrown out for what we felt were unjustifiable reasons. Later on that year—in fact, it was 20 August—Tony Abbott was thrown out by then Speaker Anna Burke. He was the first opposition leader to be thrown out in 26 years. Alby got up and was going to do his own walkout—and no-one followed him! It was just Alby on his own! He came up to me after that and said, 'Well, I'll give you credit. At least you Nats stuck by your leader. I can't understand why they didn't all walk out with me!'
Alby was a great bloke. He made his very fine valedictory speech on 25 June 2013. He was sitting just over there opposite. I well recall the long line of members from both sides going up to shake his hand or kiss him, as is traditional with a retiring member. I waited patiently in the queue. He shook hands in a perfunctory way with most of the Liberals who went up to shake his hand. When I went up, not only did he shake my hand; he gave me a hug. I do not get very easily moved or very moist-eyed too often, but I did on that occasion. He gave me a hug, and I thought, 'Wow! There's Alby Schultz—National Party hater!' That really was his way of saying how much he respected the fact that I was as passionate as he was. Even when we came to blows, he respected me as a rival but also as a person.
My association with Alby goes back a long way. I am certainly not criticising any of my National Party colleagues, but their relationship with Alby probably did not extend in the way that mine did. When Alby first became a councillor for Cootamundra, I was a journalist at The Daily Advertiser in Wagga Wagga. I came to know him then. I was the editor when he was the state member for Burrinjuck. I was still the editor when he became the federal member for Hume. We, as a newspaper, supported his—and perhaps, even more so, Gloria's—campaign to get more breast cancer services for the Riverina region, the central west region of New South Wales and those areas that he fiercely represented, because they were needed and because it was a good idea—and that remains so. The work that Gloria did in that regard was second to none.
Up until the time I nominated for National Party candidacy, Alby and I were really close. After I put my hand up to replace the retiring Kay Hull, that was when Alby started! I well remember how he went to the Wagga Wagga media and rubbished me over a policy position I had taken when I was campaigning to win the seat of Riverina. Alby was the first one there when the Liberal candidate, Andrew Negline, had his launch and other events to get his name out there. Alby was very supportive of the Liberal candidate. To Alby's credit, when I arrived here, he shook my hand warmly, but perhaps that was where the friendship stopped until he sided with me on the Murray-Darling Basin motion and hugged me when he made his valedictory speech.
I was very saddened when Alby passed away. He was a very good man. I liked, in particular, the eulogies that were delivered on that day by the Prime Minister, the member for Mackellar, his successor Angus Taylor, the current member for Hume, and his good mate Josh Frydenberg, the Assistant Treasurer, who sat beside Alby in the 43rd Parliament. I picked up Josh from the Wagga Wagga airport to take him to the funeral at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Cootamundra, and Josh and I put the finishing touches to Josh's eulogy for Alby. I was very pleased that, even as a Nat, I had a little bit of a say in one way, shape or form in that measure of respect too.
Alby earned respect. He did everything he could, as other speakers in this condolence motion have pointed out, to help lone fathers, drought stricken farmers and those who did not have a voice for whatever reason. Whether you voted Labor or Liberal—I am not quite sure about those who voted National Party!—it did not matter what your political affiliation was; if you were a person who lived in the seat of Hume, Alby Schultz would staunchly and steadfastly stick up for you in this place. As the member for Leichhardt has just said, we sometimes are a little bit too bland these days in politics. Alby was a colourful character and 'bland' was a word which you would never, ever associate with him!
I pay my respects to Gloria, his widow, and to his sons, Dean and Grant, their wives, Alby's beloved grandchildren and all who knew him, whether they be Liberal, Labor or, indeed, National Party people. We will miss Alby's contributions in this place. We will miss Alby's support of all the things he so proudly believed in. We will perhaps not see his like again, but I know that he will be sorely and sadly missed. He is missed now. Vale Alby John Schultz! You were a fine man and I greatly appreciated our friendship.
I thank all members for their contributions. I understand that there will be an opportunity for further statements tomorrow.
I rise in support of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. It is part of the government's reform agenda to assist small business to be the best it can be. Indirectly, by strengthening small business, this reform will assist in providing additional jobs—and, because small business is the lifeblood of rural and regional Australia, this bill will assist in job creation in my rural electorate of Eden-Monaro.
This bill will amend the Australian Consumer Law, which is set out in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001. It will extend the consumer unfair contract term protections to cover standard form, small business, consumer-like contracts that are valued below a prescribed threshold. It is our view that, in many cases, small businesses have no more market power or ability to vary take-it-or-leave it standard form contracts than an individual consumer; however, those small businesses have lacked the consumer-style protections that provide for unfair terms to be struck out of such contracts. Thus, this is real reform.
Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010. We said before the election that we would extend this provision, and now we are implementing it. This issue has been around for many years. I know that when I was the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry it was a matter of considerable debate. For many years, small business has been protected by unconscionable conduct provisions in legislation. However, small business associations have, for many years, put the case that these provisions do not go far enough and that an equivalent of the unfair conduct provisions afforded to consumers was needed to adequately protect Australian small business.
As the minister has noted, unfair contract terms can come in a variety of forms and can be used to unfairly shift risks to another party, who may not be well-placed to manage them. For example, they may permit one party to unilaterally vary terms, limit their obligations, terminate or renew the contract, levy excessive fees on outstanding moneys or affect the availability of redress. Under the new protections, a court will be able to strike out a term of a small business contract that it considers unfair. This will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in contracts with small businesses. Under the new protections in this legislation, a contract will be a small business contract if at least one party has fewer than 20 employees and its value is below the prescribed threshold of $100,000—or $250,000 for a multiyear contract.
I am proud to be a member of a government that does not just talk the talk on small business—we walk the walk. We put the role of Minister for Small Business into cabinet, and what a champion the member for Dunkley has been. We are the party of small business people who have been on that journey, having a go, putting the family home on the line and putting in the hours—maybe failing, maybe falling over, but getting up again and having another go. This is the Member for Dunkley's story and it is the same for so many Australians creating livelihoods and creating communities, and, ultimately, creating an economy that is the envy of the world.
We are taking steps to boost the capacity of our small business sector. But have a look at the vandalism that those opposite engaged in for six years. Under Labor, 485,000 jobs were lost in Australian small businesses! Not just employees losing livelihoods but employers losing their business, homes and hopes for a better future. And Labor lecture us on how things should be done! Around half a million jobs down the drain on their watch, and they have the temerity to demand we do something. Well, guess what? We have done things that Labor have neither the imagination nor the inclination to achieve.
A few brief examples: as part of the 2015-16 budget, we delivered the nation's biggest jobs and small business package, worth $5.5 billion. It includes: a 1.5 per cent cut in the company tax rate for small business, to 28.5 per cent; a five per cent tax discount for non-incorporated small businesses; an immediate deduction for assets valued up to $20,000; expanding the FBT exemption for work related portable electronic devices; capital tax gains relief when a business changes its legal structure but keeps the same owners; the ability for start-ups to immediately deduct professional expenses incurred when they start a business; expanding the tax concessions for employee share schemes; and the removal of obstacles to crowdsourced equity funding
In the previous 2014-15 budget, we allocated $8 million over four years to transform the existing Office of the Australian Small Business Commissioner into a Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman with additional functions and real powers to ensure small businesses can find answers to the questions that they have, quickly and efficiently. We have streamlined access to Commonwealth procurement contracts to ensure bills are paid on time. We have made changes to the way the government pays its bills: small businesses who contract with government and who have not been paid within 30 days will automatically receive interest on their invoices without having to separately apply for it. Under changes to the Commonwealth Contracting Suite, we are making it easier for small business to supply their products and services to the government. This includes a simplified process for tendering for contracts below $200,000.
There is more. An estimated 372,500 small businesses have benefited from administrative changes to the PAYG instalment thresholds announced by the government. As a result of the changes, around 32,500 small businesses that have no GST reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge a business activity statement. The remaining 340,000 small businesses with modest or negative income that were required to lodge a BAS no longer have to interact with the PAYG instalment system. Franchisees have also benefited from a new Franchising Code of Conduct. For the first time, breaches of the code will carry penalties—giving the code real tools and teeth. The government has also enacted the first ever Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, to protect small suppliers from the big supermarkets. There are other areas where real progress is being made—progress that is only possible under a government that prioritises small business, and has a dedicated minister in cabinet and, indeed, an entire leadership team that believe in it.
Small business will benefit from our wider policy actions on economic growth, productivity and deregulation, but we are also helping the sector in more targeted ways. That is because we recognise how important small business is to our economy. For example, even our rollout of base stations to fix mobile phone black spots will be a huge boost to small business in rural areas. In Eden-Monaro we have recently announced 12 new base stations, which will help address mobile phone black spots in 59 localities. I would like to particularly thank the member for Bradfield, who is at the table, who has been significant in providing this important rollout of our mobile phone black spot policy.
The coalition is committed to improving regulator reform and enhancing the way regulators engage with small business. And the government will continue to protect those who depend on independent contracting and self-employment for their livelihoods. The coalition is committed to the tax white paper process. We have introduced legislation to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Nobody in the construction industry is more affected by the tactics of the unions than subbies and small businesses.
This will be a defining moment in this parliament. Will Labor join us in putting a construction industry cop back on the beat to rein in rogue unions? We actually know what the answer is. It is 'no'. We are very disappointed, but we are not surprised. Labor will not support disinterring the ABCC. They buried it when in government and they will not be joining us in reviving it. Because they are beholden to the CFMEU, there is no way they will help breathe life into the only effective mechanism for defeating lawlessness and intimidation in the construction industry.
Equally we can ask: will they join us in supporting real action against unfair terms in contracts? As I said before, consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010. However, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, despite its initial interest, decided not to offer similar protections to small business. With this bill the government has moved on its election commitment to extend unfair contract term protections from consumers to small businesses and has provided $1.4 million to support this initiative.
As the minister has noted, in designing the legislative amendment, the government consulted extensively with stakeholders. State and territory governments were actively engaged in the development of this measure, and consumer affairs ministers—indeed, across all states, Labor and Liberal—formally agreed to the proposal to amend the Australian Consumer Law in April 2015, as required under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law.
Finally, as the minister has also noted, with this legislation, the government is restoring time and resources back to Australia's two million small businesses to invest in their business success rather than navigating a costly and time-consuming maze of standard form terms. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise, like my good friend and colleague the member for Eden-Monaro, to speak in favour of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 and to commend the Minister for Small Business. I do not know whether it is rare or not, but I can remember the precise moment that I decided that I wanted to run for federal parliament. I was driving in my car, while working for my father in our family business, and I was listening to question time—probably some sort of a sign that I needed to get a life! I heard the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, ask Prime Minister Gillard a question on the carbon tax. He asked how businesses were supposed to compete with the resultant price increases that would come from increased electricity fees. Standing at the dispatch box, Prime Minister Gillard said: 'We have compensated consumers. They should merely put up their prices.' I do not think I have ever heard better defined the misunderstanding by those on the other side of parliament, the Labor side, of how business actually operates.
At the same dispatch box today, the Treasurer said, 'It is not government that creates jobs; it is business.' I used that same line in my maiden speech—almost to a word. I rise again to talk about the role that not only small and family business plays but this government is playing in enabling small and family business to succeed. Whilst everyone else has spoken about the detail of this legislation, which I will get to, tonight I thought I would tell a couple of yarns, because it is what I like doing—and I know the member for Chifley always enjoys it when I tell him a yarn or two.
In the winter break I managed to lock myself out of my home. My wife and children were away on holidays. The last sitting week of parliament overlapped with the first week of the school holidays, so Susie and the kids had gone away. I was the only one with a key to the place, and it is fair to say the security at my place is first-rate, because I was locked out and there was no way I could get in. So I rang the local locksmith, who said, 'We subbie out our premises work to a young guy that lives in the area.' He gave me the number, and I rang Peter. As I spoke on the phone, in true publican/politician style, I said: 'Hello Peter. My name is Craig Laundy. I've locked myself out of the house.' At the other end, I heard a voice say, 'Craig!'—as if I had known Peter all my life. I of course did not have a clue who Peter was over the phone. But Peter, I am sure, over the next 30 seconds, thought I had known him since life. I ordered Peter to come over.
Peter came over in his own little van. He works himself. He would be in his early 20s. He spent an hour with me trying to help me get into the house, which he ultimately did. In the middle of that hour, he said: 'I'm going to be running late for the next appointment. I've got to do a school at North Strathfield. I've won a tender on the locks, but I had to meet the principal there at a very specific time,' which was 1.15, and this was about 12.45. I said, 'Mate, you go.' But I had another complication—I had to get to a funeral of a local identity and I was not in a suit, so I was in all sorts of trouble. Peter knew that and he stayed with me. He rang the school to tell them and ask whether he could make the appointment later. The school, which had been let down many times apparently by local locksmiths, was, I think it is fair to say, none too impressed.
I was quite disturbed. I said, 'Peter, how long have you been doing this?' He said: 'I started out about 12 months ago. I was working as an apprentice. I did my time. I worked with a business. But I've decided to take this step and go out on my own.' North Strathfield Catholic school is a new school that we launched earlier in the year. It was at that moment that I picked up the phone and said, 'Mate, I'm going to ring that school and explain that I'm absolutely the reason you're running late,' because I thought: 'There's a contract for a young guy who works by himself. He's handling the phone in between drilling in the lock on my front door, trying to get ahead.' He still lives at home. The reason that Peter answered the phone so familiarly is that I had actually doorknocked his parents' home during the election campaign, run into him and his mum and dad, had a cup of coffee with them and spoken about what the area needed, not knowing that some two years later I would run into Peter when I needed him.
I picked up the phone and I rang North Strathfield. I spoke to Sinead, who is the right hand for the principal there, and I threw myself on the sword, because I thought it was only fit. I said: 'Sinead, it's Craig Laundy. I met you at the opening of the school a few months ago. You've just received a phone call from Peter. I am the reason Peter is late, and I want to apologise. I really hope you can reorganise a time that would suit, because this young bloke is starting out in his own business, and the last thing I want to do is something that would in any way hinder his progression.' Sinead said, 'Craig, I completely understand.' I have not followed up with Peter, but I will, and I hope that that contract has gone well for him.
The moral of the story is that today's apprentice or tradie is tomorrow's small business owner. Here is a young guy, Peter, starting out answering phones and doing everything. What we speak about today is that, as these young guys and girls work their way through their trade or through whatever course they take in their education, and they take that momentous step to go from employee to employer, in their infancy we must protect them. The sobering fact is that between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014 there were 1,375 small businesses that contacted the ACCC to complain about unfair contracts. I would be lost as a young guy, because I do not have a legal background. Neither does Peter. Neither do many of these people that are taking this momentous step.
So what has this government decided to do about it? It has decided to launch this bill, which will help new entrants to the small business market. There are three categories. The contract has to fall between the prescribed thresholds of $100,000 and $250,000, or one party has to have fewer than 20 employees. It is very important that in their infancy these businesses, if they enter into a contract—as 1,375 did in the four years, or 350-odd per year between 2011 and 2014—are given some protection for what could ultimately be an honest mistake but, more importantly, could ultimately lead to the end of a small business in its embryonic stages.
Who is to know where Peter will end up in 10 years time? Knowing him as I do now, I would not be surprised if that one van becomes 10, and if instead of him answering the phone there is someone at the office answering the phone—perhaps multiple people. In those 10 vans will be, I hope, 10 employees of Peter's and 10 apprentices, and those employees and those apprentices at some stage in the future may be the next generation of small businesses—of locksmiths—within the Inner West of Sydney.
It is not just this measure tonight, proposed by the Minister for Small Business, that is a sign of the changes we have made in this space. There is of course the tax cut; there is of course the instant asset write-off. I have spoken in the chamber about the instant asset write-off of a business, a hospitality venue on Henley Marine Drive at Drummoyne, that has been closed for years. Not long after the budget I saw a lease sign; it has been leased. Because it has been empty for so long, I made a point of ringing the real estate agent and finding out who had taken the plunge and taken a lease on the place. It was very pleasing to hear that the person has decided that because there was a plan in place pre-budget to open it up as a hospitality facility, a function centre—it was going to be staged over a three- to four-year period, with capital investment made and employment resulting from that investment—that he would bring forward that expenditure and that resulting employment. He is not far away from opening up. He has decided to bring forward that expenditure because of the decisions that were made by this government in the budget.
From that day—sitting in the car, listening to the answer given by then Prime Minister Gillard, with no understanding that business cannot just put up prices to combat increased expenses when they compete in both export and import markets against companies and businesses that do not face the same infrastructure—I know I will stand with this government all day, every day, in whatever time the people of Reid give me, to fight for small and family businesses, not only within Reid but throughout Australia. Why? Because there are—back of the envelope—11.7 million people employed in Australia at the moment. Around two million of those are public servants. That leaves a ballpark figure of 10 million. Of that, 4.7 million are employed by small business—50 per cent, the same as medium-size business and large business combined. That is how important this sector of our economy is to our economy. That is something I am proud of as a member of the Abbott government and that I understand not only through working with people like the Hon. Bruce Billson and my other colleagues but through my family involvement and history in employing people. I have great honour and pride in supporting this bill, and I commend it to the House.
I rise tonight to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. I commend the member for Reid for his anecdote, because all bills relating to small business and the treatment thereof go to the heart of what makes this nation tick. The member for Reid mentioned some employment statistics. We know that small business is the major employer in this country, and we need to do everything we can to support it.
In my maiden speech, I mentioned that small business is the lifeblood of our community. We have a very common saying in Australia—'Have a go.' There is nowhere that is more about 'having a go' than in the commerce of small business. There are many men and women out there in our communities in Australia having a go and wanting to make their own success in commerce by having a successful small business.
There are a couple of reasons why this is important. It is obviously important to the people who start a business. They are hoping to secure their own financial responsibility and security, and they may well then employ people as they grow. But it is also important because we know that all we do here in government is transfer wealth from one person to another. We do not create wealth in this chamber. We certainly want to encourage people and make it as easy as we can for people to create wealth and to employ people. We want to do that. We need to do that because, without a healthy private sector, we have nothing. We then tax successful small businesses and people who are doing well. What do we do with that money? We give it, in most cases, to worthy people who need the support of the public purse. Whenever I go and talk to people who want taxpayer dollars—I respect them and we need to give many of those people money—I say we should always be respectful and acknowledge those who are creating the wealth in this country.
If we do not have a healthy private sector and businesses employing people and creating wealth, we will have no money to give to the social welfare sector, the health system and the education system. That money does not come from government. That money does not come from me, the Prime Minister, cabinet or the minister; it comes from the private sector and those many small businesses out there in our country creating wealth, creating jobs and, obviously, paying taxes.
I had the pleasure on Saturday night of going to Clarence Valley Business Excellence Awards night at the Yamba Golf and Country Club. It is the time of year in my community when many businesses have awards, and I love to go to as many as I can. I missed a couple on Saturday night because they were at the same time. It is lovely to go to these events and to acknowledge those small businesses which have exceeded and excelled. They are acknowledged by their peers by winning awards. On Saturday night, many businesses were awarded prizes, and it was great to be there. In fact, the New South Wales Small Business Commissioner was also there. She talked about the work that they do and echoed a lot of what I have just said about the importance of small business in our community. I told her this is quite a big and important part of this government's commitment.
In the 2013 campaign, we spoke about our red-tape repeal days. Sometimes, when those days come around—and I think we have had two already—those on the other side of politics almost treat it with disdain or as a bit of a joke, saying, 'Yeah, right. It's not that important. We are all on side with this.' Obviously, they were not. We are talking about repealing legislation and red tape that cost businesses money. When you have regulation that is duplicated across three levels of government there is a lot of red tape and green tape that small businesses have to comply with. It means they have to employ someone, or use some of an employee's hours, to fill out these forms. It costs money. It is not without its costs. In fact, it has quite surprised me in the last two years that a lot of people who have been complaining to me about red-tape costs are not just from the private sector. They are, in fact, from the not-for-profit sector. They have an inordinate number of forms to fill out, t's to cross and i's to dot, which is costing them a lot of money. They say, 'We are just wasting the taxpayer dollar by filling out these forms and doing what we do.'
So I speak with great fervour in favour of this bill. We are committed, as I said, to ensuring Australia is the best place to start and grow a small business. That is why we are extending the consumer unfair contract term protections to small business. We took more than 20 small business-specific promises to the last election. We said we would extend the unfair contract term protections available to consumers to small businesses. With this legislation, we have met yet another small business election commitment. Consumers have been protected from unfair contracts for a while. However, the former government, despite its initial interest, decided not to offer similar protections to small businesses. In many cases, small businesses have no market power or ability to vary 'take it or leave it' standard form contracts, other than as individual consumers. However, they lack the consumer-style protections that provide for unfair terms to be struck out of such contracts. We know that it is time for small businesses, which often face the same vulnerabilities as consumers, to also receive these protections when offered 'take it or leave it' contracts.
The bill will amend the Australian Consumer Law, which is set out in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to extend the consumer unfair contract term protections to cover standard form, small business, consumer-like contracts that are valued below a prescribed threshold. This is a long-sought-after and very welcome new protection for small business and one which the coalition has long supported.
Extensive consultations have indicated that small businesses across a wide range of industries have concerns with unfair terms. Unfair contract terms can come in a variety of forms and can be used to unfairly shift risk to another party who may not be well placed to manage them. For example, they may permit one party to unilaterally vary terms, limit their obligations, terminate or renew the contract, levy excessive fees on outstanding moneys or affect the availability of redress. We are supporting small businesses so they can confidently enter into standard form contracts for day-to-day transactions where the costs and time involved in reviewing these contracts and seeking legal advice can be disproportionately high.
Under the new protections, a court will be able to strike out a term of a small business contract that it considers unfair. This will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in contracts with small businesses. Under the new protections, a contract will be a small business contract if at least one party has fewer than 20 employees and its value is below the prescribed threshold of $100,000 or $250,000 for a multi-year contract. In designing the legislative amendment, the government consulted extensively with stakeholders. This transaction value threshold was chosen so that the protections apply when small businesses engage in day-to-day, consumer-like transactions, while encouraging them to conduct due diligence on the larger contracts that are fundamental to the success of their business.
Beyond these values, it is right and reasonable for all enterprises to seek advice on these larger contracts. It is important to make it clear that we do not believe it is the government's role to be contract nannies nor to be injecting agency bureaucrats to pour over specific clauses of multimillion dollar commercial transactions that small businesses should only enter into after much thought, careful examination and taking proper advice. State and territory governments were actively engaged in development of this measure and the consumer affairs minister has formally agreed to the proposal to amend the Australian consumer law in April 2015, as required under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law.
In line with the Corporations Agreement 2002, the Commonwealth notified the states and territories that these legislative protections would be mirror in the ASIC Act. These protections will come into effect six months after the bill receives royal assent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, who the government provided $1.4 million to in the 2014-15 budget, will support businesses transitioning to new protections. With this legislation, the government is restoring time and resources back to Australia's two million small businesses to invest in their business success rather than navigating a costly and time-consuming maze of standard form terms. On that note, I again acknowledge every small business in this country. I thank them for the risks that they take, I thank them for the capital that they invest in their small business, I thank them for the people who they employ, I thank them for the taxes that they pay and I thank them for the services that they fund to do what this country needs to do.
As has been often said in this chamber, small business runs through the DNA of this side of politics. In the last two years, as I have got to know many members of this side of politics, I have been humbled by their expertise, I have been humbled by the experience that they bring to this chamber and I have been humbled by the fact that they know how commerce works and about the types of risks and type of mindset that you have to have to make a business thrive and prosper. There is much expertise that they bring. We understand it, we acknowledge it and we want to support it.
I would like to take this opportunity to follow on from the excellent contributions my colleagues have made to this bill. This important bill before us today is another component of the coalition's election commitment to the important reforms that our small business sector needs. The coalition has a strong commitment to small businesses, because—unlike those opposite—many of my colleagues come from a small business background. This side of the House understands the needs of small businesses, the challenges of running small businesses, the sacrifices individuals and families make to keep their businesses afloat and the enormous contribution the sector makes to our communities and economy.
The statistics around small businesses have been reiterated many times in this House and, for the purposes of this bill, I would like to take the opportunity to mention them again. Ninety-six per cent of all businesses in Australia are small businesses, and they employ the majority of our workers. This includes the 13,000-plus small businesses in my electorate of Barton. Under Australian regulations, you are classified as a small business when you employ less than 20 people and have an a annual revenue turnover, excluding GST, of less than $2 million. Unsurprisingly, these are the majority of businesses that are owned by our constituents, whom we are elected to represent. As a consumer, these are the majority of businesses that I would personally come into contact with in my electorate.
We all know that small businesses make a significant contribution to the Australian economy, in terms of employing Australians, and that their collective output totals one fifth of the nation's gross domestic product. As the Minister for Small Business has mentioned previously, we on this side of the House are committed to ensuring that small businesses have the access to the resources to help them invest in success and that they are provided with adequate incentives to continue working in their business without unnecessary hassles, like red tape and excessive bureaucracy, so that entrepreneurs are rewarded for their efforts rather than punished.
The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 will seek to address some of the issues that our small businesses continue to face on a day-to-day basis, particularly with their contractual needs. We on this side of the House have argued for many years that small businesses have relative or no market power when it comes to negotiating contracts and often this means that they have no real bargaining power when doing business with other businesses who are bigger and better resourced. This can mean a 'take it or leave it' approach when it comes to standard form contracts with minimal, if any, protection for the small business if they are left with unfair terms and conditions.
Prior to this bill, there has been no real assistance for small businesses, who are left disadvantaged or financially crippled when this occurs. Unlike consumer law, where consumers have an avenue for appeal or assistance in a contractual context, small businesses do not have this assistance. They are left with the ultimatum of either taking the risk or no business deal at all. The coalition believes this is unfair, given that most Australian businesses are small businesses; therefore, this leaves a majority of businesses vulnerable to those with greater market power. We believe that a fair playing field is just and enables a realistic fair go for small businesses by allowing the unfair contract terms protections available to consumers to be made available to small businesses as well.
I would like to acknowledge quickly that although consumers have been protected since 2010, businesses were never afforded this opportunity despite the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor years. So whilst the opposition claims that it is the best friend of small businesses and that they truly understand their needs, this seems implausible given the many opportunities they have had for reform, to really listen to the sector and to heed their advice.
The Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms Bill is an Australian first, designed after the government has listened extensively to stakeholders. Many of the submissions and survey responses indicated that a standard form contract should provide a remedy for small businesses that will at least create a disincentive for unfair contract terms to be enforced upon the other party, thus lowering the risk of the small businesses that lack the resources to analyse and foresee issues arising out of an unfair contract.
In addition, the Australian Small Business Commissioner has observed instances of misuse of market power in the contracting of telephone and internet services, office or commercial leasing equipment and retail outlet leases. Other examples of unfair contract terms can include unfairly shifting risks to another party who may not be well placed to manage them, unilaterally varying terms, limiting one side's obligations, terminating or renewing the contract, levying excessive fees on outstanding moneys or affecting the availability of redress for the other party. This can also include terms that are seen to cause financial detriment or otherwise to a party if they were to be relied on or enforced. If any of these were imposed in a consumer setting, the consumer would be disadvantaged. The consumer would also have access to help, whereas prior to this bill, the small business would not.
All of the above are reasons why we need to make sure we have mechanisms in place to offer strong protection for small businesses. Therefore, the bill before us today is long sought after and very much welcomed new protection for small businesses, and one that the coalition has long supported. When we help small businesses, we provide small businesses with greater confidence to enter into contracts to invest and grow their businesses. This in turn is better for local communities and our broader economy. This is especially important to note when we consider some of the risks that businesses take in their operations, including refinancing personal assets and putting the family home on the line to ensure that their businesses can remain open and so forth.
Whilst the law still expects small businesses to undertake due diligence in the larger value contracts, we want to ensure that in all fairness they should not be forced to either take it or leave it when they are given unfair contractual terms in their day-to-day transactions. We simply cannot assume that what is considered fair by medium- or large-sized businesses is fair for the small-sized businesses. The challenges faced by one end of the spectrum do not relate to those at the other end, quite simply due to the economies of scale and resources.
Every successful large business started small, and often with livelihoods in the balance. That is why it is crucial to give the right support to these businesses so that they grow and prosper and continue to employ workers and drive the economy. The new protections outlined in today's bill will enable a court to strike out a term of a small business contract that is considered unfair. As I mentioned previously, this can reduce the incentive to include such a term in a contract and this is helpful for small businesses that do not have the time or resources for legal advice, lengthy negotiations and so forth.
I want to reiterate that, along with the coalition's election commitments of extending help and protection to the small businesses of Australia, this legislation will still be in line with our commitment of reducing red tape and bureaucracy. This legislation is not designed for the government to become 'contract nannies' and it is not designed to encourage bureaucrats to spend time examining the multitude of small business contracts made daily. The inclusions are there because it is important to offer small businesses a necessary level of protection—they are often small fish in a pond with larger, more resourced and well-equipped fish. This government is committed to being the positive partner that small business needs and to working as hard for the success of small business as those in the businesses do.
The small business and unfair contract terms legislation allows our small businesses to restore time and resources back to their enterprises, part of Australia's two million small businesses. We are simply delivering on our election commitment by putting into practice what we have always believed in. This is the government that has provided $1.4 million to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure businesses comply with the new rules. The coalition wants to ensure that Australia is the best place to start and grow a small business. Today's bill is an important part of the 2015-16 budget that we developed to produce the largest jobs and small business package in Australia's history. There are more than two million actively trading small businesses. They are an important driver of our nation's employment and innovation. This coalition is the only party that can be relied upon to ensure the needs of small business are represented and that the men and women have our support to ensure they continue doing what they do—employing locally and contributing to Australia's ongoing prosperity.
I rise to support the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. This bill seeks to extend the consumer contract term protections for small business and to deliver on another election commitment made to small business during the 2013 election campaign. Small business interests are front and centre in the thinking of this government. In opposition we made more than 20 specific promises to small business at the last election. This bill to extend the unfair contract terms protections to small business is delivering on another of these promises.
This government has runs on the board in support of the vital role that small business plays in the Australian economy. Australia's two million small businesses produce more than $330 billion in economic output and employ over 4.5 million people. As a government, we do not just recognise but value the contribution made by so many who courageously embrace this challenge and who take the risks. These are the men and women who invest and strive for success in the creation of opportunities for themselves and others in their community. We on this side of the House recognise the self-employed for the valuable contribution that they make to the economic health of this country and to their local communities. Our commitment to small business is real, durable and embedded in our DNA.
The bill before the House today will ensure that small businesses are provided with the same protections currently limited to consumers. The unfair contract terms protection for small business legislation will give them a fair go and support within the business environment in which they operate and compete. Small businesses, like many consumers, lack the resources and the skills to understand and negotiate contract terms. Many small businesses find themselves operating on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, which tends to place many of them at a disadvantage. Stakeholder feedback indicates that small businesses across a wide range of industries had concerns about unfair contractual terms. It also revealed that small businesses, like consumers, are vulnerable to the inclusions of unfair terms in standard form contracts. The government will provide $1.4 million to the ACCC to assist businesses in complying with the new law.
What does this mean small businesses? Simply this bill extends existing legislation to small businesses that employ fewer than 20 staff and enter into contracts with a value of no more than $100,000 or $250,000 for multi-year contracts. It will extend the consumer unfair contract terms and protections to cover standard form small business contracts that are valued below the prescribed threshold. Consumers have been afforded protection from unfair contract terms since 2010, but the former Labor government decided not to proceed with offering similar protections to small business. It has taken this government to address this inequity and put in place the protections that are outlined in this bill.
Under the new protections, courts will be able to strike out the terms of small business contracts that they determined to be unfair. A remedy for small businesses when an unfair contract term is included in a standard form contract will also be provided. This bill will reduce the incentive to include and enforce unfair terms in contracts, providing for more efficient allocation of risk and giving small business greater confidence to enter into contracts and to invest and grow. Under the new protections, the contract will be a small business contract, if at the time it is agreed to, at least one party employs fewer than 20 employees. A head-count approach, rather than full-time equivalent, will also simplify the application of the law.
The reforms assume that small businesses will find it easier to recall the number of people they employ at the point of entering into a contract rather than a full-time equivalent calculation. Additionally the contract must not exceed $100,000 or $250,000 for contracts of more than one year in duration. This transaction value threshold has been chosen so the protections apply even when small businesses engage in day-to-day transactions. It was also designed to encourage small businesses to conduct due diligence on large contracts fundamental to the success of their business.
Research indicates that four to five small business standard form contracts will be covered by this reform. The ACCC's enforcement action will also have an impact beyond businesses or transactions falling within these thresholds. The bill will also provide a mechanism that will allow the government to exempt laws that it believes are equivalent to unfair contract law. The protections will apply to small business contracts and for all contracts that meet the criteria, regardless of whether the small business is involved in the acquisition or supply of goods and services. In calculating persons employed, each full-time, part-time and casual employee constitutes one person. Only casual employees who are employed on a regular basis—that is, not on a seasonal roster—are to be counted, consistent with the approach used in the Fair Work Act.
The minister will have the power to exempt the application of the unfair contract term protections for small businesses, where industry-specific legislation or regulation is deemed enforceable and equivalent. The protections proposed by this bill will come into effect six months following royal assent. Over this six-month period, the appropriate regulators will engage with industry to produce guidance material and other information to assist traders to comply with the new legislation.
The measures proposed under the government's $5.5 billion Small Business Package legislative reform provides amendments to various taxation laws to provide tax relief and reduce red tape for small businesses. Many organisations have put their hands up in support of this important reform for small business, such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Its Director of Economics and Industry Policy, Mr John Osborn, stated:
Small business is the backbone of the economy and they deserve the same protections against unfair contracts as everyone else.
Professional Contractors and Consultants Australia have said the extension of unfair contract term protections to small business 'will help address the power differential of parties involved in commercially based work arrangements'.
On this side of the House, we understand that you cannot have a strong and healthy society without a strong economy to sustain it, and you do not have a strong economy without profitable businesses. Statistics released by the ABS on 29 June 2015 reveal that the Abbott coalition government has overseen a period in which the number of jobs in small business has increased by 146,000. This is in contrast to the almost half a million jobs lost in small business under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. Small business entries are up 18.71per cent and exits down 12.5 per cent. Statistics are also indicating that more women than men are actually starting new businesses in Australia. These are women who are finding new avenues of innovation and skills and are doing so while balancing the other priorities in their lives, such as work and family.
I am constantly working with small businesses in my electorate of Dobell to identify and address the barriers that prohibit growth and employment opportunities. In Dobell small business is our largest employer and we have many small business achievers. Achievers such as Nicky and Wade Mann, who emigrated from Zimbabwe in 2002 and started their business, Roses 2 Go. Lately they have started growing blueberries. I know from talking with them that they welcome our proposed legislation on unfair contract terms. There is another company, called SpotGo, and this is a local success story whose products are now on the shelves in Woolworths and IGA stores. This is a family business that, like so many small businesses, took a risk and succeeded. Then we have local small business women like Christine Hornery, the CEO of the FMS Group, who has established Pearls of Wisdom. It is a business support group that is providing mentoring, support and assistance to other business women on the Central Coast.
Small business plays a crucial role in ensuring there are local jobs available for mums and dads, school leavers and mature Australians returning to the workplace. My electorate is a great place to live, grow and raise a family and it is home to 8703 small businesses. There is plenty of room and opportunity for others to take the risk and open a new small business. We want to see business thrive and grow, and at the heart of our economic plans for growth is small business. The 2015 budget focused on growing jobs and helping small business innovate and grow. The $5.5 billion Jobs and Small Business package is the biggest small business package in our nation's history. It reduces the tax rate for more than 90 per cent of incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of under $2 million. The package will also allow small businesses with an annual turnover of under $2 million to immediately deduct for each and every asset costing less than $20,000. The provision for unincorporated businesses with an annual turnover of under $2 million will mean they will receive a five per cent tax discount, capped at $1,000 per taxpayer. Red tape will be further reduced within the fringe benefits tax system by expanding the exemption for work-related portable electronic devices for small business.
This government has a plan for our future and is keeping our commitment to the Australian people. This bill is yet another step along the road being walked every single day by the Minister for Small Business as he puts in place the measures that will allow this sector to thrive and grow. In commenting on this bill the Council of Small Business of Australia stated:
COSBOA congratulates Bruce Billson and the Abbott government on today's announcement to extend legal protections from unfair contract terms to a million small business operators.
CEO Mr Peter Strong stated:
… when COSBOA was formed in 1977 one of the key issues on our policy platform was fair contracts. This policy need has been ignored for all these years until Bruce Billson stepped up and pursued fairness and now we have it. It is a moment to savour.
I join with these sentiments and also congratulate the Minister for Small Business. I commend this bill to the House.
What a great contribution from the member for Dobell on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill. I am one of many people on this side of the House who built a small business basically from the back of a ute. My wife and I took lots of risks and built up a relatively successful business over a very long time. We have heard lots of contributions about the bill but I would like to speak about some of the content—what is risk shifting, what are the risks that people come across, what are the unfair contract provisions? I have seen many of those unfair contract provisions—the take-it-or-leave-it contract option when you are out in the real world, when you have to provide services to big companies who know they have you over a barrel. They are simply unbelievable.
Many of us as we grow a business will start off with a one-person operation and we will work from home. We will hold enough insurance—we might have professional indemnity insurance for $5 million or $2 million and a public liability policy for $1 million; just enough to get by so that you do not knock your overheads too much. In small business, cash flow is king. If you cannot meet your commitments at the end of the month, you are simply out of business and you will most likely lose your assets. It is a very difficult thing to do every single month as you build a business. As that business grows, you tend to get bigger clients who have more stringent standards. Unfortunately when you get to the top end of the tree, when you are dealing with some of the biggest government-owned corporations and some of the biggest worldwide companies who have in-house legal teams that develop their vendor agreements and develop their contracts and then farm them out to another set of lawyers to determine how it is they can drive that risk down the food chain to the lowest possible provider, the person who might have one truck and two employees, with their home basically in hock and an overdraft, ends up carrying the can because they simply have no choice but to provide their product under the service arrangements that are given to them. When you look at a vendor agreement that says, for example, you must hold $50 million in public liability and take all risks on the premises in which you work regardless of the fact that the company that owns it has some $2 billion or $3 billion worth of capital invested and could quite simply cover those risks with their in-house insurance, it is absolutely unfair. I congratulate the Minister for Small Business on what he has done to put this development together.
I call those things the shotgun spread of risk shifting—effectively, it gets punched across every single subcontract provider, particularly the ones they think they can get to pay. Unfortunately, out in the real world, a lot of those are insured by the same people. There are only one of two major underwriters for major projects, and that is where things end up. Many people I have worked with and that I have spoken to, even in this role, and small businesses in my local electorate, tell me that on a major construction job they have quoted at 200 per cent of their usual rate and they have doubled the amount of time they think will be necessary, and it simply has not been enough—they needed three times as much time to develop it; the insurance costs and overheads were completely out of hand and they have literally signed their life away in the vendor agreement because that was where they were at and they had no other choice.
Some of these vendor systems are exceptionally complicated. If you are large enough to be able to push it up to your own lawyers to have a bit of a look at it, they will always recommend that you do not sign them because you have far too much risk. Unfortunately, when you have bills to pay, when you have employees to pay, wages to pay, you must take those risks or you quite simply are not in business. In our horticulture system there is the good example of the MO for the major duopoly, the major supermarkets. There are what I like to call the four Es of the process they use: the phase of excitement, the phase of expansion, the phase of extortion and then of course the phase of extinction. This is the standard way that they tackle their suppliers and the supply chain, and it is completely unfair in many circumstances. I admit that many providers have a good relationship with the large supermarkets but I could not count how many I have seen that have fallen over because of the predatory pricing factors of the major companies in Australia. It has been absolutely outrageous.
The excitement phase is when someone comes along and they have heard you have a good product, perhaps they have been buying it from the fresh market, they have identified that it is safe and that you know what you are doing, that you can produce a consistent product of the size they want, and they knock on your door and they offer you a wonderful agreement—they will take as much as you can provide. You have the opportunity and you have the spare land, you have the capacity, and you now have an offer which means you can go into the next phase, which of course is expansion. How do you do that? You borrow money. You borrow capital, you employ more people and you quite simply take more risk. You have a large growth phase—you get yourself into hock but that is not a problem because you are providing lots and lots of content, usually to the one supplier—the one big supermarket. Of course you then have extended risk.
Then comes the extortion. They will come back and negotiate with you, and you find you actually do not have a contract—you have a supply arrangement or a supply agreement or some other technical term put together by a team of lawyers to ensure that at any time they so choose the person buying your product no longer has to take it. This is when the price squeeze starts. Quite simply, there will be an offer that says: 'Down the road we can source your product for $1 a box less; you must match that price or you will be out of business.' So the options are very, very few indeed. This is the 'take it or leave it' offer. This is exactly what this bill is designed to knock over, for small suppliers in this country.
At the 'take it or leave it' point, you have two choices. You can take the option of extinction, which means you will shut up shop. You will sack your staff, you will leave and you will lose your money and pretty much everything you put in place—because the one thing I know about banks is that they always get paid. Wherever possible, they are first in line. They certainly ensure that they get every opportunity. Or you can take more risks and you can hobble on.
That is one of the issues right now in terms of the labour force in Australia. The government have set up Taskforce Cadena simply to make sure we can put some boxes around, and knock over, illegal labour hire contractors in this country. The primary reason they flourish is that the major supermarkets have forced a lot of suppliers to the point where they simply cannot supply at the right rate. So the options for smaller suppliers are to either lose your farm—lose your property, lose your investment, lose your children's future—or take more risks.
We need to fix that. We need to level the playing field. We need to balance it out. Taskforce Cadena will do that. They have been actively pursuing these people for some weeks and they have had a lot of success. It is typically the labour hire contractors, the ones who do the wrong thing, who get paid, because the overwhelming majority of growers actually pay the right money. They pay their bills, the money goes across, but the labour hire firms keep the money. They do not pass it on to the people who do the work—and they put those people in some very unsavoury and unhygienic places. They make an awful lot of money from people who probably do not know any better. Taskforce Cadena and this government are getting on with the job.
I also congratulate my good friend and colleague the member for Page on his contribution. He spoke about the huge efforts that small business put in in Australia, because it is them that take the risk. They are the ones that put their house on the line. They are the ones that employ people. In Queensland, over 90 per cent of all employment is provided by small business. They are the absolute backbone of this economy, and we need to ensure that we look after them. This bill is about ensuring that they do not get the 'take it or leave it' offer which is currently in place all over this country and that they have the opportunity to sort that out.
Consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms since 2010. However, the former government decided not to offer similar protections to small business. Small business simply does not have the capacity to lawyer up with someone from Sydney or Melbourne, pay those bills and successfully run a case. It costs an absolute fortune to run something under this legislation. So, in many cases, they do not have the market power or the ability to vary that 'take it or leave it' offer. Out in the real world, there is what is called competition! And there is much competition. They will take every opportunity that you do not. If you are not in the game, you are out of the game. You need to be able to act fast. Arguing about a vendor statement usually puts you out of work. That is not a position small businesses should be in.
This legislation will extend the consumer unfair contract term protections to cover standard form, small business consumer-like contracts that are valued below the prescribed threshold. Under the new protections, a court will be able to strike out a term of a small-business contract that it considers unfair—and that is the key point: one that is unfair. The contract is a small-business contract if it has at least one party of fewer than 20 employees and its value is below the prescribed threshold of $100,000, or $250,000 for a multiyear contract. These protections will come into effect six months after the bill receives royal assent. The Competition and Consumer Commission—the government provided $1.4 million to it in the 2014-15 budget—will support businesses' transition to the new protections.
I am very pleased that the minister has acted. This is something that needed to be addressed. Small business will continue to build the economy of this country. We need to ensure that they are protected. We need to ensure that their contract arrangements are fair and not prejudiced by the work that they need to do for major corporations in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. It is a pleasure to follow the member for Hinkler. I actually ran into the previous member for Hinkler at the member for Canning's funeral in Western Australia. He asked me how the current member for Hinkler was going, and I said he was doing a great job. Listening to him speak just then about his experience of small business and his understanding of the contracts, particularly in the retail sector, was interesting. I have listened to some of the other contributions from this side of the chamber. Again, the member for Reid told a great anecdote about Peter, the guy who came to unlock his door when he locked himself out recently. They are the types of experiences on this side of the chamber that show that we get small business.
It was also interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition tonight, up at the ACCI cocktail party in the Mural Hall here, saying that Labor get small business and explaining some of the areas that Labor did get small business. Then he went on to speak about how the coalition had blocked their small business measures in one of the budgets. But the fact is we had not blocked it. We had spoken against it but we had not blocked it, because they actually had the numbers in this place when they put forward those measures. They had their coalition with the Greens and they had the numbers in this place to get that 1.5 per cent tax cut to small business through. But you know what the flaw was? And, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I am sure you would, coming from the great state of Western Australia. It was that it was all based on an anti-Western Australian tax, the mining tax, which as you know has now been scrapped by the coalition, as we promised to do when we went to the 2013 election.
I congratulate the Minister for Small Business on bringing this legislation forward. I have spoken to him about it on numerous occasions. I understand that there was some work done in 2009 on contractual arrangements for larger businesses. But the previous, Labor government, during their six years in government, did nothing to help small business, and that belies what they were spruiking—that they are all for small business and understand it.
The minister has worked in a consultative manner, and I know it has been appreciated by many small businesses. In my electorate of Swan, we have about 18,000 small businesses, and I know they understand that this will be a very important piece of legislation for them, once it passes the House.
We are committed to ensuring Australia is the best place to start and grow a small business. That is why the government is extending the consumer unfair contract term protections to small businesses. We made a commitment to the bill, as I said. In the lead-up to the September 2013 federal election, as shadow minister for small business, competition policy and consumer affairs the Hon. Bruce Billson articulated the coalition's commitment, if elected, to extend the consumer unfair contract protections to small business.
Following that election, as Minister for Small Business, Mr Billson outlined the government's plans to extend protections already in place for consumers under the Australian consumer law to the small business sector. He said:
Small businesses often receive standard form contracts from business on a "take it or leave it" basis, and encounter the same disadvantage as individual consumers when it comes to negotiating contracts.
For example, we understand that primary producers are increasingly contracting directly with the large supermarkets and that in many instances, supermarkets insist on standard form contracts.
We agree that many benefits flow from using standard form contracts—they save time and keep costs down. But they can also be used to shield a business from risk unfairly ….
In extending these protections, we recognise though that there may be several issues to work through. A thorough consultation process is going to be essential if we all want to get this reform right.
That was the Minister for Small Business, and he has thoroughly consulted to make sure that we have got it right.
The government took more than 20 small business specific promises to the last election. A key promise was its commitment to extend the unfair contract terms protections available to consumers to small business. With this legislation we have met yet another small business election commitment. Consumers have been protected from the unfair contract terms since 2010; however, the former government, despite its initial interest, decided not to offer those protections for small business, as I previously stated. In many cases small businesses have no more market power or ability to vary take it or leave it standard form contracts than an individual consumer but lack the consumer-style protections that provide for unfair terms to be struck out of such contracts. We knew it was time small businesses, which often face the same vulnerabilities as consumers, also receive protections when offered take it or leave it contracts.
The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business Unfair Contract Terms) Bill will amend the Australian consumer law, which is set out in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. This legislation will extend the consumer unfair contract terms protections to cover standard form small business consumer-like contracts that are valued below a prescribed threshold. This is a long sought after and very much welcomed new protection for small business and one that the coalition has long supported.
I would just like to give a bit of background. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you are from Western Australia and you understand the construction industry where I also originated from before coming to this place. I would like to highlight some of the contractual problems that are currently going on in Western Australia, particularly those related to contracts and subcontracts. There was an article in TheWest Australian on Monday, 27 July. I will read parts of that article to give a bit of background about what is actually happening in Western Australia. The article headlined 'Builder in subbies pay row cleared' says:
WA Treasurer Mike Nahan has cleared building giant John Holland over payment disputes with subcontractors on the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital project.
The Government pledged to mediate mounting contract disputes last month amid reports subcontractors were awaiting payments totalling millions of dollars, including ceiling company managing director Ross McGinn who recently took his own life.
Acrow Ceilings Pty Ltd claimed it was owed $2 million and Yuanda Australia, which worked on the hospital's external facade, reportedly sought $8.6 million. Other subcontractors had similar claims.
Dr Nahan met Mr McGinn's family after his death and officials from the Treasury's Office of Strategic Projects met John Holland representatives in recent weeks. Dr Nahan said yesterday that the Acrow dispute arose when it claimed for work it considered to be over and above its contracted scope of works but which John Holland considered part of the contract.
He said the State had reviewed all payment claims, certificates, details and correspondence provided by Acrow and "this examination has confirmed that the payment process in the subcontract is being followed".
Dr Nahan said subcontractors could seek rapid adjudication of payment disputes under the Construction Contracts Act, but no CCA applications had been lodged by Acrow.
The State had requested from John Holland details of payment to all subcontractors and in each case during the past calendar year due payments had been made "in strict accordance with terms and conditions".
Mr McGinn's son, also named Ross and a director at Acrow, said the company had not lodged a CCA application because it had been awaiting advice from the Government on the outcome of its discussions with John Holland. The company would now consider making an application.
This gets back to the heart of the matter about contracts with major companies and subcontractors not only across the construction industry but across all sectors of the Australian community and Australian business. This has been approached and dealt with by some of the smaller business associations in Western Australia and as far back as 18 December 2009 they had legal advice from a company with regards to some of the actions that should be taken and recommended to change the act in Western Australia. I know we are talking about the federal act but I would like to highlight some of the issues with the Western Australian act. One of the things it states in that particular area is that the Western Australian and Northern Territory acts are dissimilar to the eastern states acts. That advice says:
The main problem with the Constructions Contracts Act is that it does not follow the procedures or fundamental principles embodied in the eastern States' Acts. As you are probably aware, South Australia and Tasmania are going to adopt the New South Wales Act to the extent that it is relevant to them, which will mean that all of the States on the eastern and southern seaboard (ie NSW, Qld, Vic, SA & Tas) have Acts which are essentially similar, whereas WA and NT are completely out of step in respect to the procedures under their Acts.
This highlights yet again the fact that, despite the fact that we have a population of only 20-25 million people, our legislation varies considerably between various parts of the country. There is, in my view, a compelling argument that WA should in effect amend its Act so that it now accords with the procedures of the NSW Act upon which the other States have based their Acts. Presumably, if WA agrees to follow the broad basis of the NSW Act, then NT would follow suit. It may be advantageous in due course to support these differences between the WA/NT legislation with the legislation of the other States by doing a comparison of the procedures, time limits and legal effects of the two sets of legislation in order to highlight not only their differences but also their superiority, in our view, of the eastern States' legislation over the WA legislation.
If the WA Parliament is not prepared to entertain fundamentally changing its Act so that it accords with the NSW Act, then there are still two major items that need to be addressed in the amendments to the Construction Contracts Act in order to make it much more effective.
It goes on to say:
In the eastern States, a claim under the Act can be made up to 12 months after the work has been done. This means that in relation to variations, for instance, variations can be accumulated where they have not been paid in full or at all, until it becomes commercially advantageous to bring a claim consolidating those variations within that claim. This is not possible under the WA Act because a claim must be made within 28 days of a dispute arising. At the latest, a dispute arises under the WA Act when a payment has not been made. Consequently, if a Contractor submits a claim for the variation and that variation is not paid within 28 days of the due date for payment of that variation, then that variation cannot be the subject of an adjudication under the WA Act. It is commercially unviable in many cases to start an adjudication for, for instance, one or two small variations in order to preserve a right to adjudicate those claims. In our view, the time limit for bringing claims should be extended to 12 months to enable consolidation of small variation claims to be included in the one adjudication. This is a serious anomaly in the Construction Contracts Act and needs to be rectified. The NT Act extends this time to 90 days which is still insufficient.
One of the many issues that has been raised in WA—and I am sure it appears across Australia, particularly on construction sites—is that when the subcontractors are offered a contract, a 'take it or leave it' contract, as we are trying to deal with here, they are told: 'Here, sign this. If you don't sign it, you don't get the job.' If they do not sign it, because it does not suit their contract or it is too onerous, the major contractor just moves on to the next subcontractor until they find one who is obviously looking for work and is desperate enough to sign that contract.
But the issue arises when it comes down to defaults on the standards and the specifications of the job. The major contractor will call in an independent so-called expert who will review the work done by the subcontractor. They will say that it is substandard; it does not meet the specifications. They will then get someone else to rectify it and charge an exorbitant price against the bill of the original subcontractor. In that situation, the subcontractor has the right to take legal action; but, in the terms of what the value of that payment may be, the subcontractor will normally have to walk away from that contract. We hope these amendments will make sure that those types of things, particularly in the construction industry, do not continue to happen.
The coalition is committed to small businesses in Australia. Unfair contract terms can come in a variety of forms and can be used to shift risk to another party who may not be well placed to manage it. For example, the contract may permit one party to unilaterally vary terms, limit their obligations, terminate or renew the contract, levy excessive fees on outstanding moneys, as I just mentioned, or affect the availability of redress. So, in designing the legislative amendment, the government consulted extensively with the stakeholders. This transaction value threshold was chosen so that the protections apply when small businesses engage in day-to-day consumer-like transactions, while encouraging them to conduct due diligence on large contracts fundamental to the success of their businesses. The reason we chose the prescribed threshold of $100,000 or $250,000 for a multiyear contract is to say that we are the government that looks after small business in this area, not big business. It is a well thought-out, well consulted piece of legislation, and I commend this legislation to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015. This bill fulfils one of the coalition's commitments of the 2013 election, particularly the commitment that was made to the huge and vital small business community of Australia. The coalition understands the importance of small businesses. They are the engine room of our economy and have been since 1788. This government is implementing changes to support the viability and continued growth of small businesses. The coalition is reducing the tax rate for small businesses and providing immediate tax deductions for assets purchased by small businesses.
This bill will amend part 2 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, adding a new class of contract—a small business contract. It will apply at the time a contract is entered into where at least one party to the contract is a business that employs fewer than 20 persons and either the up-front price payable under the contract does not exceed $100,000 or the contract has a duration of more than 12 months and the up-front price payable under the contract does not exceed $250,000.
This bill will provide small business with the same protection as consumer products—and so it should. Small business is the lifeblood of my electorate of Murray. We have retailers, dairy farmers, orchardists, tradespeople, insurance, real estate, doctors, allied health professionals and corner stores—just to name a few. We are an electorate of small business. There are over 15,305 small businesses in my electorate of Murray, of which one-third are related to agriculture.
Unfortunately, farmers are price takers, not price makers in the Australian economy. They face one of the most concentrated food retail sectors in the world. Some 80 per cent of food retailing in the domestic market in Australia is captured by two big enterprises: Coles and Woolworths. The market power of farmers in this situation is small. They need the protection of the law, and I am so pleased that this bill will give them some of the protection that is required. My farmers and other small businesses have little market power to stand up against the contractual arrangements of the large supermarkets. They often cannot afford legal advice to match that of the supermarkets, and they cannot by themselves interpret the pages and pages of terms and conditions in these contracts. They may either take the contract at face value or decline to enter into the contract and lose the business opportunity all together.
As a consideration of this bill, the court will be able to strike out a term of a small business contract that it considers unfair. An unfair term is one which would cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term and would cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to a party if it were to be applied or relied upon.
In deciding whether a contract is unfair, a court must take into account the transparency of the term—that is, whether it is expressed in reasonably plain language, is legible, is presented clearly and is readily available to any party affected by the term. The exceptions to the unfair contract term provisions are terms that define the main subject of the contract, set up the up-front price payable under the contract or are required or expressly permitted by a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory. The up-front price payable is the amount that is provided for the supply or sale under the contract. It is disclosed as or before the contract is entered into. It does not include any other consideration that is contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a particular event—and I will come back to that when I discuss some of the recent outcomes of Coles and Woolworths seeking to exercise their market power with their suppliers.
Before I get to that point, there are some very real issues related to unfair and obscure contracts currently being forced on my electorate's small businesses, in particular farmers in the electorate of Murray. In my electorate irrigators have been forced to sign contracts for the so-called $1 billion Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project. This $1 billion has been provided by the Commonwealth and follows $1 billion supplied by the state government with the idea of shutting down half of the irrigation system in order to take their water and put it into the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's bucket. The farmers within the area of the Goulburn-Murray Water irrigation project—which is bigger than Tasmania—are required to accept all the terms, often in a cluster with their neighbours who, for example, share contiguity on a spur or supply channel. They are then often bound by strict confidentiality agreements. They often have very little opportunity to consult a knowledgeable lawyer on these matters and often have to negotiate over four, five, six and up to eight years to settle these contracts. There is very little opportunity or willingness on the part of Goulburn-Murray Water to negotiate changes to the initial contract with an unfortunate irrigator if they happen to have their farm on the spur which has been targeted for shutdown.
The irrigator may appeal to a review committee that has been set up by Goulburn-Murray Water, a fully state owned water authority in Victoria, but they must put up $490 for this appeal to be considered. Even if the independent review committee recommends in their favour, Goulburn-Murray Water does not have to take any notice of the committee's decision. It can be taken simply as advice only. Surprisingly, there have been next to no appeals made despite the scores of desperate and deeply troubled irrigators who make their complaints to my office.
If the irrigator does not accept the terms of the state Goulburn-Murray Water authority's agreement within a 12-month time frame, they can be subject to the compulsory powers of the Victorian Water Act and become compulsory reconnection to a part of the system which no longer serves their needs—for example, an intensive dairy operation. Often they will experience a loss of water access and a higher cost of water application. For example, in the future they may be required to use intensive energy, either diesel or electricity, to deliver their water, when before they could use a system with a highly efficient gravity bed set-up which did not cost them any energy bills at all.
Goulburn-Murray Water is a monopoly supplier of water. It is no longer possible to sue this water authority due to the change to the Victorian Water Act, even though it is widely regarded to be unconscionable behaviour on their part. We do not have to go far back to find examples, therefore, of the misuse of market power in contractual arrangements, including where these involved state agencies. The impacts on small businesses—in this case, farms—can be extraordinarily detrimental not only to the individual farms but to the region depending on their supply of milk to keep local milk manufacturing at an appropriate economy of scale.
In June this year Coles was instructed to refund over $12 million to over 200 suppliers and to also allow suppliers to exit Coles's Active Retail Collaboration program without penalty or have their ARC contribution rebates reviewed. This not only provided a refund to suppliers but also resulted in further substantial ongoing savings for Coles's suppliers. I commend very much the vigour that was brought to this case by the ACCC.
In 2012, the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector highlighted some of the concerns of small businesses and larger business suppliers in relation to contract terms and conditions, particularly with the large grocery retailers. For example, winemakers had to accept the contracted price offered for their product. Paragraph 3.76 of the Senate committee's report stated:
When concerns about pressure to accept trading terms including additional fees, were raised with the retailers, Woolworths explained that negotiations although tough, were fair …
Mr Ian Dunn of Woolworths Ltd stated—
'I would say that we are tough negotiators… We negotiate fairly in the marketplace on behalf of our customers. If we agree to an increase or a change in trading terms with a supplier, it will be because they see a benefit in doing so.'
Paragraph 3.79 went on to say:
Mr Dunn told the committee that in those cases where a competitor announces a price promotion and Woolworths matches the price in the market, they will ask a supplier if they can contribute to the discount but they do not alter trading terms:
'That would generally involve a telephone call and a discussion with the supplier to say: "I am now selling at a lower margin in the marketplace on this particular product. Are you in a position to help me? I can do this, this and this if you are able to do that, that and that." If it happens, that is fine; if it does not happen, we match the price anyway and we trade as we are.'
I put to you that that is a nonsense statement given that, as I said earlier, Coles and Woolworths own 80 per cent of the retail sector in Australia. If, as a supplier, you find yourself at odds with either Coles or Woolworths and you lose your contract with them, you have nowhere else to go, pretty much. Although ALDI is coming to the marketplace and Costco has helped somewhat with this situation, it remains a fact that 80 per cent of the market power continues in the hands of those two big retailers.
In responding to the committee's concerns about trading terms, Coles explained that its trading terms are complex and involve a variety of terms:
… probably well over 100.
When asked about their top five trading terms, Mr Durkan said:
In as many instances as you could have we would prefer to have net cost prices, so no trading terms at all apply to our cost prices. If I take most of our fresh areas, they are net prices. Where we get into complex terms tends to be in our groceries and more on our branded side than on our private label side. Those terms are so varied and there would be no commonality around them, and in many cases designed by the food manufacturers …
Mr Durkan said that the shape of their trading terms are decided by the food manufacturers and explained that:
Our trading terms are built over many, many, many years. These are not trading terms that have just evolved in the last two, three, four, five years. If we could, Coles would have net trading terms. We would have a net price and we would be done with it. There are variable elements, depending on how much marketing spend the manufacturers wish to make in a year.
One of the saddest things that I have had to do was discuss with Heinz—before they exited the small town of Girgaree and took their tomato sauce factory to New Zealand—how they felt that it was impossible to negotiate with one of the two big supermarket retailers when it demanded that they produce a no-name product in direct competition with their own branded product, which their own research and development had spent years investing to make it a superb product. The market power of these two big supermarkets is extraordinary. This bill will help very much.
Mr Roger Lenne, of Fruit Growers Victoria Limited, detailed the reluctance of Coles to deal directly with the supermarkets despite being a collective. He said:
I have not personally approached them
… … …
Individuals like us would not even get through the door.
… … …
I have had it said to me before … 'We'll buy our food from overseas; from other countries.'
That is if they do not cooperate. We have a very important bill here. Mr John Wilson of Fruit Growers Victoria Ltd suggested that the majors have an aversion to talking to industry associations as it costs them money. He said that:
They have a preference for dealing with a preferred supplier chain so they can play one off against the other.
With this bill, we in Australia will be able to make sure that the huge retailers who have the market power in our domestic market, in particular, will not be able to play the small suppliers off one against another. We will perhaps be able to protect the employment base of our small suppliers and be able to bring our consumers genuine Australian produced home-grown product rather than imported home brand, which is disguised in a can to look like the Australian product, and which has with labelling that can be made to mean anything. So I am so pleased that this bill is coming into force. The same Mr John Wilson, in talking to the Senate inquiry, explained the difficulty of negotiating as a collective:
They will resist and go straight to the Trade Practices Act, which says that it is anticompetitive to deal only with collectives. We make approaches to and work with major packers on the fresh fruit side to try and maintain some sense in the marketplace. But it is very difficult, because all you need is one player who, under financial pressure, succumbs and then you will have a cave-in effect. That has happened recently with the Coles campaign for cheaper permanent prices for produce.
So we have to have a bill like this, which will give our smaller businesses some capacity to fight back and to act collectively, where that is allowed within the law.
Too many of our small businesses—our great employers, the engine of our economy and our nation—have been taken to the wall by the very big players in this country. I commend this bill to the House. It will go some way to increasing the capacity of small businesses to achieve a fair deal when contracting to supply the larger big businesses in town. I commend the bill to the House.
I came to this place, like so many of my colleagues—at least those that find themselves on this side of the chamber—from a small business background. I was privileged to run a small business myself. I grew up in a household with parents who themselves ran small businesses—in the case of my father, a farming enterprise; in the case of my mother, a retail shop for some 40-plus years.
Before I go any further, Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the speakership. I was speaking to the children at the Meningie Area School and the Murray Bridge High School, which you visited shortly before your election, as you toured both schools with me in your capacity as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I confirmed for them that it is true that, for one to assume the speakership of this place, one needs to spend time in both those institutions. In any event, I have also had occasion to speak about your election and, indeed, your success to the Hon. Neil Andrew, a former speaker in this place. He wanted me to convey to you his sincere congratulations. He enjoyed a text he received from me outside of the chamber regarding your ruling about this time last week, where you referred to a decision of his which was included within Practice.
I was speaking about the importance of small business to this side of the House. Of course, it is embedded into the DNA of almost every one of my colleagues. Our government is committed to ensuring that Australia is the best place to start and grow a small business. The coalition understands that small business makes a vital contribution to the economy and communities—particularly regional communities, like the one I grew up in and represent. That is why, Mr Speaker, we took to the 2013 election more than 20 policy ideas to support this vital sector of our community. We are on track to fully implement these commitments. Indeed, the passing of this bill into law is a key promise that we made to extend unfair-contract term protections that are available to consumers to those that operate small businesses. With this legislation, we have met yet another of those small business promises that we took to the 2013 election.
As you know, Mr Speaker, for a very long time, consumers have been protected from unfair contract terms. However, the former government, despite its initial interest in this policy area, decided not to offer similar protection to small businesses. That was despite the fact that small businesses and consumers both suffer from inequity of power structures. I look forward to speaking further on this at another time.
Debate interrupted.
At 4.30 pm today I presented myself to His Excellency the Governor-General as the choice of the House as its Speaker, and His Excellency was kind enough to congratulate me. His Excellency also presented to me an authority to administer to members the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I now lay the authority on the table.
Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to that high office.
Tasmania's economy currently paints two very different pictures. It stands at a crossroads. There has been significant government investment over the past decade that has helped to make Tasmania a leader in agriculture, with irrigation investments; in aquaculture; in tourism, with over a million visitors to Tasmania in the year ended March 2015; and in hospitality. Likewise, there has been strong support from governments for emerging science and innovation, with the Antarctic research and education sectors all showing positive signs.
Sadly, on the other side of the coin, we have a state ranked last in almost every key economic performance indicator. Recently Tasmania was again at the very bottom of the CommSec State of the states report. Catholic Social Services recently produced the Dropping off the edge report, which looks at relative disadvantage based on criminal convictions, employment, rates of disability support and low-income families, and it shows a similarly bleak outlook. The report shows that our most disadvantaged communities in 2007 were as disadvantaged, or more so, in 2014. Places like Brighton, George Town, the Central Highlands and Glenorchy all show growing disadvantage for low-income families. Even a slight improvement in employment late last year has been eroded by several months of job losses, although the last month was a bit better. Sadly, we also have the worst youth unemployment rate in the country, with four out of our five regions in the top 20 for the highest youth unemployment in the country.
When the proportion of those struggling in our community continues to grow every year, it is a sign of a structural economic problem and a failure by government and by communities. I have been making sure Labor understands not only these challenges in Tasmania but also the very many opportunities that we have. It is because of these realities that earlier this year the Labor leader announced the establishment of a Tasmania task force. The role of the task force is to develop a long-term strategy to grow jobs and to enable Tasmania's sustainable development into the future.
What Tasmania really needs is a vision that is about sustainable growth and change, not more cuts. The task force is developing this vision by consulting widely with Tasmanians on four key areas that we want to focus on: economic development—supporting transition to growing industries, including but not limited to renewable energy, boutique food production, aquaculture, and eco and cultural tourism; employment—growing employment, including jobs of the future, with particular focus on working with business and the community to improve opportunities in areas of high youth unemployment; education—expanding the skills base and increasing attainment rates to ensure the next generation is equipped to drive the new economy as well as to provide retraining and upskilling opportunities for experienced workers who lose their jobs; and growing Tasmania—building on the clean, green image Tasmania has and the premium reputation of our goods and services. Labor wants ideas on how you believe all three tiers of government can address these issues. I firmly believe that Tasmanians are sick of the short-term pork-barrel and they want lasting solutions for our state. Tasmanians are fiercely loyal about where we live, now more so than ever, but they want outcomes that benefit the whole community and that are lasting.
Over the last decade, through the confidence of Tasmanian businesses and backing from Labor in state and federal governments, we have seen the aquaculture industry grow to be worth over $600 million a year now, supporting almost 4,000 jobs. Likewise, Labor's considerable investment in irrigation, unlocking the huge potential of the state's agriculture sector, is now worth over $1 billion annually. Both of these industries now share bipartisan support. What we want is a plan for our state that has bipartisan support. To date we have had forums around the state in Burnie, Launceston and Hobart. We have also had industry-specific roundtables and individual meetings with many Tasmanians. More than 200 Tasmanians have contributed in person, and over 100 written submissions have already been received. Submissions for the Tasmanian task force close on 31 August, but we have more roundtables continuing after that.
I thank Labor shadow ministers who have been to our state, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the shadow minister for agriculture, the shadow minister for ageing; and those ministers coming down in the future, the shadow minister for defence, the shadow minister for communications and the shadow Attorney-General. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, can I add my voice to the many congratulations, particularly today, when you have been formally recognised by the Governor-General as the Speaker of the House.
I rise today to draw attention to the issue of inequitable access to higher education opportunities for the youth of O'Connor relative to their urban counterparts. On 4 August, I hosted a forum together with Senator Bridget McKenzie and a panel of representatives from the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services. Over 65 people attended the forum, including grandparents; parents; university, high school and gap year students; education professionals; and others concerned at the barriers country kids are experiencing in obtaining a tertiary education. I commend the attendees for sharing their personal, often heart-wrenching stories, and I acknowledge their well-considered recommendations on how the federal government can address the obstacles they have encountered.
Together we heard of the emotional as well as financial costs for regional students having to leave home and the security of family, friends and mentors to set up a life in the city, taking full responsibility for the daily necessities of feeding, clothing and transporting themselves, as well as securing a job while maintaining their studies. Many are ineligible for any government financial assistance. The most common scenario cited was students who have worked towards youth allowance eligibility under the regional independence criteria, only to fail due to the parental income threshold of $150,000. These parents then end up paying the living expenses of $17,000 to $25,000 per year. One parent at the forum had put four children through their higher education, and another had spent $250,000 over the past 10 years. Many parents and students struggled with the complicated eligibility criteria. One highly educated parent clocked up 80 hours assisting their child in filling out the documentation. I wonder how less educated or extremely busy parents assist their children in meeting such eligibility criteria.
Overall, eligibility for youth allowance under any of the independence criteria was cited as a major barrier for country students, due to the limited availability and seasonality of regional employment. Concerns were voiced about regional and metropolitan Centrelink offices providing inconsistent information or losing critical documentation; multiple appeals being required to attain eligibility; unacceptable delays; and suspension of payments. We heard of unavoidable issues like a break in work history due to illness causing suspension of payment in several cases, and one student lived in his car for three weeks awaiting his first youth allowance payment.
But it is not all bad news. Although Western Australia, unlike the eastern states, does not have any large regional universities, in Albany we are fortunate enough to have a regional campus of the University of Western Australia. It provides a few full degree courses and first year units, enabling local students to complete at least some of their studies close to home. Our Great Southern Institute of Technology seeks to offer degree programs in nursing and other in-demand qualifications through university partnerships so local students can be educated in situ and hopefully graduate to contribute to our much-needed regional professional workforce. The City of Albany is proactively trying to grow Albany as a tertiary education destination, and I strongly endorse the efforts of Mayor Dennis Wellington and his deputy, Greg Stocks.
Most of all, I acknowledge the quality of our local students. They are distinguished by their excellent academic achievement, qualifying for university places only to be hampered in their aspirations by the tyranny of distance from their desired course and the inherent financial barriers to obtaining self-sufficiency. The principals who attended the think tank I convened after the forum confirmed that up to 80 per cent of their 2014 graduates qualified for university entrance, yet 97 per cent would take a gap year, largely due to financial considerations. Deferral from university only holds the place for 12 months, yet students have to take 12 to 24 months to qualify for youth allowance under the various different criteria. Those who take time out are often lost to the temptations of a regular disposable income and peer group pressure. One principal stated that over 33 per cent of their students taking a gap year would not proceed to university. But, looking to the future, recent budget changes to remove the family assets test and the family actual means test and allow all family tax benefit children to be considered in the pool of eligibility will make it easier for a subset of my constituents who previously were ineligible for youth allowance.
It is my intention that the collated information from this forum, from the think tank and from individual submissions contribute to effecting change for our rural, regional and remote students who aspire to a tertiary qualification. I believe Ministers Pyne and Morrison will receive a final report on this Australia-wide consultation process later this year. I thank them in advance for collaborating to level the playing field for rural students compared with their metropolitan cousins.
Finally, I congratulate the attendees on their candour and their considered contribution to effecting change for future generations of regional students who wish to attain a tertiary qualification. Our kids are our nation's future. They deserve the best educational opportunities regardless of their postcode.
On Friday 14 August I attended Yeronga State High School's Multicultural Day. This day celebrates the unique cultural diversity that exists at Yeronga State High. This school includes students from over 50 different countries and over 60 cultural backgrounds. I was happy to be there to see part of the 'United Nations' parade, where students would come up to the microphone and announce the country they were representing, normally in their own language. That is an interesting point, because there are so many Australians from so many different countries—something I am sure the government will realise in the next couple of weeks. I hope they will realise that almost six million Australians potentially could be deported back to another country if they did the wrong thing. They need to realise that so many Australians come from so many different countries. It was a wonderful event at Yeronga State High, and I thank the school and the principal, Terry Heath, for inviting me and many other distinguished guests. I know how much this school cares for all of its students, and the event reflected the genuine respect and spirited interplay between the students and the teaching staff.
Sadly, at the rollcall of nations there was one voice missing—a voice from Iran that was heard in the playground last year and the year before. I am aware that students and teachers at Yeronga State High have been particularly distressed in recent months about the voice that has been missing, the plight of one of their students. Mojgan Shamaslipoor was a student at Yeronga State High School. Mojgan is from Iran and arrived by boat with her brother a few years ago. Mojgan enrolled at Yeronga State High School in July 2013 after being granted a bridging visa in 2012. Her teachers say she was making excellent progress. Mojgan has worked very hard to master English; obviously this is her second language. Her teachers say she is gifted in performing arts and was a valued member of the school community. Like many other students, she was thinking about what will happen in the months ahead. In the middle of last year she married Milad Jafari, an Australian citizen. I know that is young to be married—only 21. It is a little bit like Romeo and Juliet. But young love: it happened, and Mojgan and Milad were married.
Mojgan, sadly, while at Yeronga State High during the day, was interned at the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation Centre at night. She was in the playground by day and then had that semi-confinement at night. Her teachers say Mojgan was extremely anxious and distressed while staying at the transit accommodation centre. The school was very supportive of Mojgan's situation. However, they were concerned about her mental health. As she moved towards graduation she would have had a few nerves about exams and the like. Mojgan was only three months away from graduation but, sadly and unexpectedly, she was forcibly removed from the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation Centre and sent to detention in Darwin. This is obviously a very distressing situation for Mojgan and also for her husband and the staff and students at Yeronga State High, as well as the community, who have come to know her and of her sad circumstances—the school that has provided her with support and friendship over the two years she has been a student there. Like her husband, Milad Jafari, I now call on the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Minister Dutton, to grant Mojgan a spousal visa so that this sad state of affairs will not have the same ending as Romeo and Juliet.
It is a testament to Yeronga State High School that they are able to unite so many culturally diverse students and create an atmosphere of love, support, respect and academic excellence. Yeronga should be an example for all of us in our community, rather than those who seek to create division and lack of respect.
Sadly, my fellow Queensland MP the member for Dawson recently attended a rally that promoted right-wing extremist behaviour and was designed only to create disharmony in our society. We as MPs should be doing all that we can to encourage harmony, just like Yeronga State High School did on Friday and does every day of the week that it is open. Sadly, we have a government MP—the member for Dawson—who, without any admonishment from the Prime Minister, sends the wrong message to many people in our community, especially our hardworking multicultural communities. The Abbott government needs to get its priorities right and provide support and funding for those organisations that are working to build a cohesive and inclusive Australia rather than ignoring the fact that government backbenchers speak at rallies that promote hatred. The silence of the Prime Minister was deafening. Remember: the standards that we walk past are the standards that we accept. (Time expired)
I rise this evening to discuss three major road projects urgently needed in my electorate of La Trobe. I know about these from speaking to local residents, from hearing from those who have actually contacted my office or filled out surveys or simply by driving around the electorate myself.
The growth of housing in La Trobe is just incredible. The first major project we need in La Trobe is the Monash Freeway capacity improvement. Unfortunately, the Bracks Labor government in the previous era announced that the Monash Freeway had been built on time and under budget, but the reason for this was they had left a lane off it. Other projects are the O'Shea Road extension to the Beaconsfield interchange and east-facing ramps, and the Thompsons Road duplication.
The Monash Freeway needs capacity improvement. Our region needs the addition of extra lanes on the Monash Freeway from the South Gippsland Freeway merge to Beaconsfield. It also needs traffic management. We need to see during peak hours more lanes of traffic going in to town and fewer coming out, so the traffic lanes flow with the traffic at its most important stage. When it is busy, we need more lanes. Why is this needed? Approximately 100,000 local residents travel to work every day via the Monash corridor, not so affectionately known as the 'Monash carpark'. This rate of travel is expected to double by 2036 in proportion to the population growth in the region. Severe congestion on the Monash Freeway already brings commuters to a crawl well past Clyde Road in Berwick.
Our region also needs delivery of the missing O'Shea Road connection east of Soldiers Road to the Monash Freeway-Beaconsfield interchange, as well as east-facing ramps, to complete a full diamond interchange. Why does our region need it? Once completed, it would open up a new connection between Casey and Cardinia and provide a parallel east-west route to the Monash Freeway for commuters heading from Cardinia through Hampton Park to the employment areas of Dandenong South and Kingston. It would also reduce pressure on the congested Monash corridor and reduce traffic through the Soldiers Road and Kangan Drive areas of Berwick and Beaconsfield. The development of the O'Shea Road extension will facilitate and fast-track development of local employment land at Minta Farm, which is envisaged to create up to 10,000 jobs, and that is what we need—jobs.
Our region also needs the Thompsons Road improvements from Dandenong-Frankston Road to Cardinia Road in Officer South. This will service an employment and freight corridor spanning the Casey, Cardinia, Dandenong and Frankston municipalities and link emerging employment and residential areas. Why does our region need this? The current population of 380,000 in the Casey Cardinia region is projected to grow to 630,000 by 2036. Along with this massive population growth, we would see a huge jobs deficit, with 70 per cent of residential workers leaving the region each day for work. The Thompsons Road corridor has the capacity to support in excess of 100,000 jobs within the region, which would reverse the westward flow of commuter traffic and relieve pressure on the already congested Monash corridor. This delivery would also act as a catalyst for the speedy development of land in the corridor, opening up further residential and employment opportunities. I congratulate both Casey and Cardinia councils, which have jointly come to me and lobbied for these three projects.
All of this is clearly needed for more local jobs, for more local business opportunities for small business owners, for sustained population growth, for management of traffic flows, for the development of our residential areas and for the better work-life balance of people who live in La Trobe. Families in La Trobe want to spend more time together. They do not want their mum and dad or their brother and sister driving on the Monash Freeway to be stuck in traffic. We need to commit to provide funding for these three projects as soon as possible to keep up with the area's growth. In the neighbouring electorate of McMillan, the growth out in the Pakenham corridor is also incredible. I will be lobbying hard to get commitments on these three projects, working with both the federal and state governments.
During the parliamentary recess, I had the opportunity to meet with some families in Greenway whose lives have been changed by the diagnosis of a family member with type 1 diabetes. The life of Donna Meads-Barlow, founder of the Danii Meads-Barlow Foundation, was changed in the most tragic of circumstances. Donna's daughter Danii was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of five. She and her family managed her disease, and Danii grew into a beautiful, outgoing teenager with gorgeous strawberry blonde hair. One night in November 2011, Danii went to bed and never woke up. Donna asked me if I had ever heard of the syndrome known as 'dead in bed'. I had not, but I came to understand from several constituents who had contacted to me in the weeks preceding our meeting that it means the parents of children with type 1 diabetes cannot sleep with their bedroom door closed.
The Joyner family was one of many who had contacted me about type 1 diabetes, a disease which has no cure and is not attributable to lifestyle factors. Emily Joyner is 18. I will quote from the words of her mother, Sue:
My eldest daughter Emily was diagnosed in 2004 with Type 1 Diabetes at the age of 8. We have no family history of type 1 diabetes so this came as quite a shock. We did not know then what our family would need to deal with, let alone Emily.
In the last 10 years alone, Emily has had to do over 21,840 finger pricks to check her blood glucose level, insert over 1,210 cannula sites in her stomach for her Insulin Therapy Pump to avoid multiple injections daily. Emily and us, her family, have never slept more than 3 hours at a time as we have to check her blood glucose level through the night to make sure she does not fall into a coma due to either low or high blood glucose levels. This is also known as Dead In Bed Syndrome.
Children should not have to endure this. Their families should not have to live like this.
I want to thank Emily; her mum, Sue; and the local residents who shared with me how they do indeed endure and the reason why Emily's quality of life has improved. The answer is continuous glucose therapy, or CGT. Emily was kind enough to show me the sensor that sits subcutaneously on her tummy and measures her blood glucose level on a continuous basis every five minutes. A transmitter sends information to a receiver which shows the Emily's blood glucose level, and her condition can be managed so much more effectively. Her mum writes:
I cannot tell you what a peace of mind this has brought to our family. Not only does it take the guesswork or fearfulness of what level Emily may be, but it is like being able to see inside her body and watch what is happening and being able to control it more closely. This amazing technology lets you see what we were not able to before, but also alarms us to any potential low or high blood glucose level before causing danger to Emily.
As I did my own research after our meeting, I came to appreciate the real stumbling block for this medical breakthrough not being more widespread: its cost is around $5,000 a year. Without a subsidy under the National Diabetes Services Scheme or costs defrayed under the PBS, it remains prohibitively expensive for many families. I also note estimates from Diabetes Australia that the cost to government of managing type 1 diabetes in individuals is $16,000 a year. I doubt there would be anyone in this parliament who would not want sufferers of this disease—and I have seen estimates of there being over 130,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes—to receive the treatment they need. This was the central message of the family members who visited me, and I thank them sincerely for doing so.
I realise there are what seems like countless issues that demand our attention as local members. This one did demand my attention and it got it. I raise it today for the fact that all of us would all be representing some sufferers and their families, and we would all want to see them receive treatment that could prolong an improved life for themselves and those who love them.
If I can end with some words from Donna Meads-Barlow and commend her for advocacy. I commend my local residents for their advocacy also. Donna said:
The DANII foundation would be happy to work in partnership with the government to implement evidence based technology, improve the quality of life of those living with type one diabetes and reduce the overall costs to government of managing this disease.
I acknowledge the member for Greenway for her valuable contribution in bringing what is a debilitating disease to the attention of the House. I thank you for your contribution. I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for your elevation to high office. I know that our offices traditionally work well together. I look forward to every day that I get the opportunity that I get to work with you and your office. Congratulations on your recent high office.
Earlier this year, the government launched the Sporting Schools program. This was $100 million initiative that represents big changes to school sports. In over a decade, it will benefit hundreds of thousands of primary schools right across all of Australia. It is about keeping our kids fit, healthy and happy. Sporting Schools gives schools access to accredited coaches and programs for more than 30 sports during, before and after school. In my electorate, I have 14 schools that have signed up to participate in the program. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of them personally for their initiative in signing up. I would like to acknowledge the principals. In addition to the principals, I know that behind every great principal there is a great P&C. I also wish the principals to acknowledge the P&Cs.
There is Emmaus College in Jimboomba. The principal there is Kevin Schwede. Kevin, thank you for signing up. There is Flagstone Creek State School, where the principals are Caroline Evans and David Prestridge. I know they will do a great job in managing that program. In the west of my electorate, there is Gatton State School's principal, Vince Burke. Thank you, Vince, for getting involved. I know you have a commitment to making sure that your kids are fit and healthy.
Further over to the east, I thank Gilston State School's principal, Bruce Langes; Grantham State School's principal, Rebecca Cavanagh; Harrisville State School's principal, Christie Minns; Helidon State School's principal, Elizabeth Eilers; and Hills International College in Jimboomba's principal, Kevin Lynch. Today is a significant day: Jason Day just won the cup and I think Jason Day was a student at Hills. If it was not there, it was at Beaudesert State High School. It is definitely within my electorate. If I have misrepresented that, I know Kevin will reach out to me; if it was not with Kevin, it will be at one of the other schools. Hills is an international school that also has its own golf course. They encourage kids from all around the world to go there. They have this very aggressive golf program. I did one of my presentations there last year. These kids are playing off scratch and one or two handicaps. It is simply impressive.
I thank Numinbah Valley State School's principal, Warren Greinke. Just across from Numinbah Valley State School is a little creek; they have got a platypus in their creek. I thank Park Lake State School's principal, Craig Larden, and Silkwood State School's facilitator, Jessica Wertz. Numinbah Valley State School, as part of their sports program, periodically they will also take the kids up and they will walk the Kokoda Trail with their parents. It is a great exercise.
To St Bernard State School at Mt Tamborine's principal, Adam Brandt: thank you for signing up. Adam is going to make a lasting impression on that school. His contribution is not only on the school but to the community. St Mary's Catholic Primary School's principal, Tim Stinson, is doing an outstanding job there in that school with their sports program. The school is also going through some trauma. They have just had their fete more recently. Their administration building has just been rebuilt after a devastating fire there that was some time back. Tamborine Mountain College's principal, June Melbourne, does an absolutely fantastic job up there—June, thank you. She has been there since the school first kicked on.
I personally congratulate all of these schools in my electorate of Wright who have recognised the importance of Sporting School for their students' health, development and happiness. Too many of our kids today are overweight. This program speaks of addressing the obesity issue and it speaks about re-energising the children in our electorate before and after school. It is a great program. To those schools that did not take the opportunity or missed the opportunity to pick it up, I encourage you and implore you: please, this is a great program that your students will benefit from it and your community at large, into the future, will benefit from it. If we have got our youth of tomorrow up running around fit and healthy, then that creates healthy minds.
House adjourned at 21 : 30
Last month I had the pleasure of visiting the Cardiff Early Education and Care Centre. It was a special day for the centre, because they were taking delivery of some new toys. These were not just any toys; they were large wooden modules that had been hand made and purpose built for the children at the centre by the members of the Blue Gum Hills Mens Shed. It was really great to be there with the teachers and members of the shed to watch as the children unpacked their new wooden ramps and cubes with excitement and quickly put them to good use as roads, houses, tunnels and whatever other objects they saw in their imagination. The idea for this project came from the centre's director, Kathryn Russell, who I am told approached the men's shed to get them involved in making timber toys for the children. This is the very essence of what makes a community great. I thank Kathryn for reaching out and making the connection because, from what I saw that day, the joy is shared equally between the kids and the men who made their toys. I also thank the Blue Gum Hills Mens Shed for their work in our community and for inviting me to be part of this special handover. Theirs is a particularly busy men's shed, with other projects such as the little free library at the Maryland Neighbourhood Centre and the decking and sandpit project at Lambton Public School, built in conjunction with the Elermore Vale Men's Shed, also to their credit. Even more impressive is that they do this without a physical shed to work from, though we eagerly await the construction of what will no doubt be a well-used space.
Men's sheds make a valuable contribution to the social cohesion of our area. I strongly support the movement because I see firsthand the impact that they have on the wellbeing of both men and women who are associated with them. There is a saying in the men's shed community that men do not talk face to face; they talk shoulder to shoulder. That is why men's sheds are so important to improving the mental health and participation in society of our community. Charlton is home to a number of men's sheds, and it is always a good day when I get to drop in on one of them. I had one such experience a couple of weeks ago when I visited the Lake Macquarie Classic Boatshed at Rathmines. This is a beautiful repurposing of space whereby the former substation and shower block of the old Catalina flying boat air base has been converted into two boatsheds which are now used by the group to build and restore historic boats. The former Labor government provided a funding grant to help get the shed up and running. I am particularly pleased to see this come to fruition. I congratulate the members of the boatshed for their hard work in building this great asset for our community. I thank all members of all the men's sheds in my area. Men's sheds have been headquartered in the Hunter region—their national administration—and they are growing day by day in my area. As I travel up and down the lake and around Newcastle I see many men's sheds run by committed volunteers who are purely doing it to improve our community. I thank them very much.
Australia is in the midst of an ice epidemic. Every state and local government is affected, with the devastating effects of ice destroying young people and families across the country. Unfortunately the Knox municipality, which coincides broadly with the boundaries of my electorate of Aston, is not immune. In fact Knox has become an ice hot spot, with drug offences skyrocketing over the last five years. Australia wide the rate of ice use as the main form of drug among amphetamine users has doubled in the last 12 months alone, from 22 per cent in 2010 to 50 per cent now. Those using ice are doing it more frequently. The number of people using it at least monthly doubled from 12 per cent in 2010 to 25 per cent in 2013—around 90,000 Australians aged 14 and over. This is an epidemic which we must get on top of.
In the middle of July, I organised a local public forum on ice in Rowville, and the Knox police, together with local social and health workers and the federal Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, heard from over 140 concerned local residents about the effects of ice. Many who attended were directly affected by the spread of ice through family members who are currently addicts or recovering addicts. Many others were parents concerned about what might happen to their young children if the spread of ice continues. The message from residents was clear: we must tackle this epidemic head-on.
Locally, I am currently putting together the Aston ice report, which is designed to outline what Knox residents believe is the best course of action to tackle ice locally and nationally. This incorporates views from the public forum as well as from my Facebook page, emails and meetings that I have had. Some of the key themes which are coming through include: firstly, focusing on early prevention, which involves better education, some hard-hitting public campaigns, similar to the anti-smoking campaigns, and aiming for cultural change around drug use; secondly, tackling both the supply and the demand side of ice through stronger penalties for users, manufacturers and suppliers, and boosting police services on the ground; and, thirdly, additional funding for rehabilitation services to help people get off drugs.
Nationally, as you would be aware, the government is taking a variety of steps to tackle ice. Just yesterday the Prime Minister announced $1 million to establish a national Dob in a Dealer campaign. We also announced a boost to the crime-fighting capabilities of the Australian Crime Commission, with an additional $18 million funded from the proceeds of crime. Last week the parliament passed legislation to crack down on middlemen and drug couriers bringing precursors into the country to make ice. We all know ice is at epidemic levels in Victoria and in the nation and is increasingly a problem in our community— (Time expired)
I rise today to hold the government to account for failing to keep their promises on broadband, which is having a very significant effect on the lives of the people living in my electorate and the businesses operating in Hotham. In August 2013, the communications minister promised that the live rollout of broadband would be commenced in mid-2014. Unfortunately, the NBN that was promised to us was a second-rate NBN—one that will not equip us for the 21st century and one that, unfortunately, will have to be upgraded more or less continuously over the years to come. Even with this second-rate NBN, the rollout is way behind schedule. During the election, the coalition promised they would deliver the NBN to 11.3 million households by the end of 2016, but the budget papers revealed that, at best, just 3.1 million homes and businesses will have the NBN by September 2016. In my electorate of Hotham, the only homes with any form of NBN are those that benefited from construction that was undertaken under the former Labor government—that is, households connected to fibre in Springvale South.
It might be news to some people in this chamber, but many of my constituents in Hotham lack access to even basic ADSL services. Deputy Speaker Griggs, you would know that I do not represent a rural electorate. I am talking about people who live within 20 kilometres of the Melbourne CBD. So bad is the port availability in Heatherton in my electorate that a number of residents have been in touch to tell me that they simply cannot get access to the internet at all. One of the affected families is an IT professional and his partner, who is a medical professional. They have two young children living in their household and the family does not have any internet access. They told me they are considering moving suburbs because they are struggling so much without this very basic thing that they need to survive as modern people living in our country. I find it extraordinary that a family living within metropolitan Melbourne is in the situation. I am very sad to report that these are not isolated incidents. I receive similar complaints from people living in Dingley Village and Cheltenham, where residents are being forced to rely on dial-up.
Sadly, this is not a problem affecting homes just in my area. Recently, seven mayors of the municipalities around South East Melbourne wrote to the Minister for Communications to beg for improved access to broadband for our manufacturers. I represent an area where thousands of people in the car industry are going to lose their jobs over the coming years, yet 85 per cent of businesses that are operating in this area are relying on ADSL. This is a disgrace. We need to get our nation into the 21st century and part of that is by building a world-class broadband network. We need to get with the movement.
I am pleased to inform the House that there are a number of industries in Tasmania showing promising growth and green shoots of economic recovery. The tourism industry in particular is kicking goals under Liberal governments in both Hobart and Canberra. Recent figures from Tourism Research Australia show that Tasmania recorded a 28 per cent increase in international visitors in the 12 months to March 2015, with 197,600 travellers arriving. This was the single greatest increase in international travellers by any state or territory in that period. The good news for tourism operators in Tasmania is that overseas visitors are staying longer and spending more in our beautiful island state. The largest growth sector was overseas holiday-makers, with 150,800 people taking a trip to Tasmania. This was a healthy increase of 33 per cent over the previous year. It is interesting to note that there was an increase of 48 per cent in the number of people from overseas travelling to Tasmania for education. The number of holiday nights spent in Tasmania by overseas visitors in the period increased by 50 per cent to 1.82 million, with the average length of stay increasing by 15 per cent to 12 nights. Overall visitor nights increased 37 per cent to 3.4 million, with the average length of stay increasing to 17 nights. The research also showed that international visitors spent a total of $304 million while in Tasmania, while the average spent per international visitor increased by 42 per cent. I also note that nearly half of the overseas visitors came from China. That highlights the exposure that Tasmania got as a result of President Xi Jinping's historic visit to Tasmania, our free trade agreement and recent trade missions to China by Tasmanian government and business leaders.
Will Hodgman's government in Tasmania is supporting the Tasmanian tourism sector with an additional $12 million in tourism marketing and industry development. The Tasmanian government has set a target of 1.5 million visitors a year by 2020, which the tourism industry says it will create 8,000 new jobs. This target will no doubt be assisted with accolades like the recent Travel + Leisure World's Best Awards, where Tasmania was ranked the best island destination in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific region, and the fourth best island in the world. Tasmania also made it into Lonely Planet's world's best 10 island holiday destinations, being named second in the list of family-friendly destinations in Australia. Tasmania has unique visitor experiences to offer the world, experiences that make the most of our clean and green food and wine and rugged wilderness. For the Tasmanian tourism industry and the many other sectors in the state economy that benefit from it, there is much to be optimistic about.
I would like to talk today about the Abbott government's cuts to community service organisations and the devastating effect they are having on my community of Brand and the communities of Rockingham, Mandurah and Kwinana. Once again Tony Abbott and the Liberals have targeted the poorest and most vulnerable in our community. The Abbott government has cut over $270 million from the Department of Social Services discretionary grants program. That program delivers funding to community organisations providing a broad range of vital services assisting struggling families and individuals. Thousands of community charity organisations relied upon this funding to provide families and individuals facing crisis with emergency relief such as food parcels, bedding, clothing and vouchers.
We cannot tackle poverty, homelessness or family violence and create a flourishing society without supporting strong yet frugal community organisations that provide emergency relief for our most vulnerable. For instance, Rockingham Emergency Relief in my electorate of Brand was one of the organisations affected by these savage, heartless and poorly thought-through cuts. The Rockingham Emergency Relief service run through Anglicare from the St Nicholas Community Centre was forced to close its doors on 30 June this year, after its funding through the discretionary grants program was cut and it had exhausted all of its private funding. It had provided the homeless and disadvantaged with food parcels, bedding, clothing and vouchers when available.
Importantly, it also helped give emotional support to people who had been hit hard and who had hit rock bottom, providing them with dignity and friendship and care in times of need. Volunteers have told me:
More people than ever before appear to be struggling financially through no fault of their own.
They tell me:
Money just doesn't seem to go far these days. When you have a low income, have lost a job or experienced an unforeseen event such as a sudden illness or injury, it is unlikely that many people will have sufficient financial reserves to fall back on.
Indeed, the people of whom I speak have nothing to fall back on.
Last year the Rockingham emergency relief service helped over 1,600 individuals and families as part of their walk-in service. These emergency relief services are not there to provide a supplement to people on a weekly basis; they are there to give a helping hand to those at their lowest and most vulnerable point.
Thanks to the hard work of the volunteers, such as Gillian Harris, a new organisation providing emergency relief will hopefully reopen soon, with private funding and community donations. Unfortunately, the community has already been damaged by the centre's closure and this limited private funding will only go some of the way to filling the void left by the Abbott government's cruel and unnecessary cuts. The closure of this service has caused agreements to be cancelled and the flow of donations from individuals to local businesses has stopped.
I call on the minister to reverse these unfair, short-sighted cuts to community organisations to ensure that the Rockingham emergency relief service and many others are able to continue. (Time expired)
Vale Brian Ahearn. I do not remember whether it was Neil or Isobel Trease who said to me, 'You should come out to Lyrebird Walk to see what's going on and see what the men are doing out there.' I did that, and when I arrived at Lyrebird Walk apparently Parks Victoria had closed the park. Brian Ahearn had decided to go out every Wednesday and start to clean up so that people could start to use Lyrebird Walk again. Neil Trease went with him, with the support of his wife, Isobel, and that is how the Wednesday Warriors started. When I met them, I went out there and saw what they were doing in the park—how they we rehabilitating the park, the weeds, the bridges, the walks, everything—and I called them the Wednesday Warriors. They went from two to four to six to eight to 10—how many of them there are now, I am not sure. The member for Charlton said before, 'Men don't talk face to face, they talk shoulder to shoulder.'
We arrived at the Mirboo North Memorial Hall on Friday because of the sad passing of Brian Ahearn, and I saw the Wednesday Warriors there. They were putting out more and more and more chairs because people were arriving and arriving and arriving. Their sons spoke beautifully of their father. His daughter was there for support. Their grandchildren spoke beautifully.
I was asked by the Wednesday Warriors to come and join them and speak about Brian. After we had been to Lyrebird Walk that day and saw the work that they were doing and tasted Brian's beautiful gourmet sandwiches and morning tea—he was a marvellous cook—I hopped in the car and I said, 'I reckon I know that guy. I reckon I know him. I don't know how.' I did not know him, until Phil Toovey got up the other day at the service, and it twigged. When I was active in disability services 30 years ago, so was Brian Ahearn. I remembered him for all those days. I said in my address that people with disabilities are better off for the fact that Brian Ahearn lived. Men, in the Mirboo North area particularly, are better off because Brian Ahearn lived. The community in general—the swimming pool and all the other organisations that he was in—were better off because Brian Ahearn lived his life. That is why there were so many people gathered at Mirboo North to celebrate his life. And I do mean celebrate his life. Vale Brian Ahearn, a man of the people.
I rise in the House today to highlight and congratulate the Australian Medical Association and the Australasian New Car Assessment Program—ANCAP—who have joined forces. Last week in Parliament House they launched a campaign, 'Avoid the crash, avoid the trauma,' which is all about focusing on new technologies to be standard features in Australian cars, in order to save lives. Particularly, the focus is on the autonomous emergency braking or AEB system, and the need to make it standard in all new cars sold in Australia. It is already standard, now, in cars in Europe, Japan and the United States because it is seen as being a very essential component to ensuring that cars are safer and therefore we save lives.
Some key facts with respect to this particular area are: 80,000 Australian lives have been saved due to improvements in road safety since the 1970s; technologies like AEB could be as effective as seatbelts in saving lives; AEB systems have shown to reduce rear-end crashes by more than 38 per cent and in some studies up to 70-plus per cent; and 90 per cent of crashes involve some form of human error. Automated technologies such as AEB assist by removing that human element and, as a result, reduce road crashes and associated trauma.
Autonomous emergency braking, by the use of camera and sensor technology, can detect the speed and distance of objects in a vehicle's path, which will ensure that brakes automatically respond, even if the driver does not. And that is why it is a very important technology to be utilised into the future. Unfortunately, at the moment, it is an expensive option, rather than an established essential in Australian cars, and that is why government and car manufacturers need to address this issue. We need to redirect car manufacturers' subsidies into programs that will facilitate faster introduction of AEB, support a nationwide AEB consumer awareness campaign, and ensure that fleets are updated and fleet-purchasing policies include AEB. It is also suggested that it is worthwhile looking at appointing a dedicated road safety minister, and I think that that is also something worthwhile considering. We need manufacturers to move on this essential technology with respect to the future.
The fact is that, even though we are seeing steady and significant improvements—and I am old enough to remember the 'Declare War on 1034' campaign in Victoria back in the late sixties and early seventies—we are still seeing the unnecessary deaths of around 1,200 people every year as a result of road crashes and road trauma.
So I urge the government to get behind this campaign. I urge the community to understand the need for this technology and I urge manufacturers to ensure that it becomes a basic in new cars in Australia.
I would just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of the wine industry. What a vital industry it is—not only to our nation but, particularly, to my state of Tasmania. I also take this opportunity to recognise those businesses that make such a valuable contribution to the Tasmanian economy within my electorate of Lyons.
I would like to recognise many of those family businesses that are striving to grow and capitalise on the reputation and the growing reputation that Tasmania has for producing some of the world's best cool-climate wines—particularly pinot noir, but also, increasingly, grapes that supply many of the very best sparkling wines produced in this country. Not only are they of world renown to the judges, but, I suspect, from a commercial point of view, most importantly to the consumers who enjoy those wines. Indeed, Tasmania is the jewel in the crown of an important national industry, driven by quality, that is growing domestically but also, increasingly, looking to markets that we have overseas. Our reputation is for the quality of Tasmanian grapes and the brand that supports that.
One of the challenges, though, for the industry is indeed the wine equalisation tax. Many recognise that the original intent of this tax and the rebate associated with it are no longer supporting regional vineyards, the tourism enterprises many of them are involved in and the employment that they create. There are anomalies within the scheme: for example, the fact that New Zealand producers are also eligible for the rebate. Reform, indeed, is needed, and I call on the government to engage with industry on this as a matter of urgency. Our exports increasingly need to be focused on quality.
I will just acknowledge the four major wine regions within the state that encompass the electorate of Lyons: the Tamar Valley wine region, which includes Josef Chromy Wines, Ninth Island, Stoney Rise, Wines for Joanie, Moores Hill, Goaty Hill, Iron Pot Bay and Holm Oak; in the south, Bangor wines, Cape Bernier Vineyard, Bream Creek Vineyard, Frogmore Creek, Pooley Wines, Tolpuddle, Domaine A, Stefano Lubiana, Derwent Estate and Norfolk Bay; on the east coast, Darlington Vineyard, Kelvedon Estate, Mayfield Vineyard, Spring Vale vineyard, Milton Vineyard, Gala Estate, Devil's Corner and Freycinet; and in the north-west, Ghost Rock, Barringwood, Lake Barrington Vineyard, Hawkes and Rubicon, Three Willows, Tiger Ranch, White Rock and Wilmot Hills.
Seven preschools attached to the Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah Colleges have recently undergone an assessment and rating, as part of the national quality framework for early childhood development. The results will make other education providers across the country green with envy.
Children's education and care services covered under the Education and Care Services National Law Act, a federal law enacted by the Labor government in 2010, are assessed and rated against the national quality standard. The process reflects a uniform approach to assessment and reporting across the entire range of education services in all of Australia. The relevant authority in each state and territory undertakes the assessment and rating process. So, in June this year, the Victorian department of education visited the Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah preschools.
The assessors determine how a school is performing according to seven quality areas. They include: education program and practice, children's health and safety, physical environment, staffing arrangements, relationships with children, collaborative partnerships with families and communities, and leadership and service management. Each quality area receives its own rating. The top possible rating for each quality area, and overall, is 'Exceeding national quality standard'. If a school receives an 'Exceeding' standard in the majority of quality areas, it receives an overall 'Exceeding' standard.
I am very pleased that the seven Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah preschools received an 'Exceeding national quality standard' rating in each and every one of the quality areas. This is an enormous achievement, deserving of recognition, and I want to pay tribute to Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler, the principal of the Yeshiva-Beth Rivkah Colleges, and the head teacher, Morah Barbara Belfer, the preschools leaders, as well as the teachers and parents who have put so much care, time and energy into looking after the next generation at this outstanding school. Barbara Belfer is a religious woman. She sat in the seat in front of me at Mount Scopus College. Now, when I attend the school, I delight in telling the preschoolers and the young children there that we both used to get in trouble for being naughty and talking too much in class!
The idea behind the ratings and assessments, beyond simply making sure that the children at any particular centre are being adequately educated and protected, is to drive continuous improvement and consistency in services across the country. It is an excellent model, and entirely justified. In the case of Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah Colleges, their preschools are exemplars for all early childhood learning centres across this country. It might well happen that other schools will learn from them. But it is very satisfying—with the recent spate of unpleasant publicity about historic injustices faced by some older students at that school—that the new board and administration and the very satisfying work being done in the preschools are all adding up to a very good image, and I expect the colleges' education program to continue on its upward path.
The North Lakes and Mango Hill area in my electorate of Petrie is a beautiful part of the world, and I would like to touch on a few of the projects I have been working on with locals in this area. But first: congratulations to everyone who took part in the Lakes College Fun Run on Sunday. The Lakes College does a fantastic job in putting this on every year, and it is great to see thousands of locals and visitors getting their running shoes on and doing some morning exercise. The course took us around the amazing scenes of Lake Eden. And I would like to mention here our local Green Army projects at the North Lakes reserve and Brackish Lagoon that are helping keep our area beautiful and thriving with native wildlife.
North Lakes and the surrounding suburbs are some of the fastest growing communities in Australia. The region is booming, and this is great for our local families, small businesses and jobs. But of course, with this development, we have seen an increase in congestion on the main arteries leading into and out of the area. Speaking with locals earlier this year, we identified Boundary Road as a traffic hot spot. I launched a petition calling on the state government to help fund an upgrade to this road and, thanks to everyone who threw their support behind the project, we should see the construction of a new Boundary Road overpass begin early next year. We are also seeing great progress on the $583 million federal contribution towards the Moreton Bay Rail Link, with two stations at Mango Hill, one at Rothwell and a fourth at Kippa-Ring well under way. This rail extension will provide enormous economic and social benefits. The first major link from Brisbane to Moreton Bay was Anzac Avenue, which was constructed just after the First World War and brought tremendous business, work and tourism opportunities to the area. The Moreton Bay Rail Link will build on these opportunities.
I would lastly like to touch on the coalition government's approximately nine per cent boost to health and education this financial year alone. North Lakes, Mango Hill and Griffin are home to many young families, and as parents we want the very best education for our kids. Already schools like North Lakes State College, Mango Hill State School and Bounty Boulevard State School have benefited from this increased funding. A good health system is equally important, considering that our population is growing and the number of Australians in the over-65 age group is projected to double in the next 30 years. Development and population growth in areas like North Lakes and Mango Hill mean that we have to be proactive in building the roads and infrastructure of the 21st century. We are building these roads, we are reducing taxes and the cost of living for families, and we are getting the budget back on track, because that is what this government is all about. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Reid. Small and medium businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy and, of course, the engine room of employment. For them to thrive and to prosper, an effective infrastructure network is vital. In my contribution today, I am keen to focus on the investments occurring in my electorate of Corangamite as part of our record $50 billion of infrastructure spending announced in last year's budget.
Very proudly, we are duplicating the Princes Highway, an incredibly important road for Geelong, Colac, Winchelsea, Birregurra and Beeac. It is wonderful to see that underway. We are having some problems with the section between Waurn Ponds and Winchelsea; there has been a delay. I have called on the state government to explain why there has been the delay, and unfortunately they have not provided the answers that the community deserves. However, it was with great pride that I turned the sod with the Colac Otway Shire mayor, Frank Buchanan, a number of months ago on the section between Winchelsea and Colac. It is going to absolutely transform the Colac Otway region. This is so important not just for road safety but for new business investment, for jobs and for new opportunities for the farmers and the major employers like AKD, Australian Lamb Company and Bulla Dairy. I am delighted to report that the CEO of Colac Otway Shire is already seeing a significant increase in interest from businesses and developers. So already we are seeing a real surge of activity as a result of our government's investment.
There is similar excitement on the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road, a wonderful project for tourism, for road safety and for the wonderful communities that span the magnificent coastline from Torquay right through beyond Cape Otway. That is a very important project. The Great Ocean Road is the centrepiece of a $2.1 billion tourism economy and really is very important. I have to say it is very unfortunate that we saw Labor campaign so vigorously against this upgrade. They ran a terrible campaign riddled with false claims, such as that we were going to turn the road into a four-lane freight highway. So, unfortunately, the Labor candidate for Corangamite and Labor oppose the upgrade of this road. In contrast, I am very proud to say that I will be fighting for more funding for this road, because it is such an iconic road. It is so important—not just for Australians but for international visitors. It needs more money and I am going to be fighting very hard.
The problem that we have in Victoria is that we have an infrastructure crisis caused by the Andrews Labor government. At the heart of that crisis—when you look at the $30 billion of infrastructure investment occurring in New South Wales—we have the East West Link project cancelled, costing 7,000 jobs and at least $640 million. This is a terrible decision. It is a project that was previously supported by the likes of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Corio, but they did not have the courage to stand up to Daniel Andrews and the CFMEU. This is a project that is desperately needed.
We have seen what is going on in Victoria as a result of the Andrews government's failure to invest in infrastructure. Look at Bay West—Bay West is another classic example. At the moment it is all smoke and mirrors. They said they were going to deliver it and they said they were going to look at a second port. We now see more manipulation and more deception, with a dirty deal involving the Port of Melbourne where there will be no second port under the state Labor government.
In Victoria last month there were 6,900 new jobs; in contrast, in New South Wales there were 29,600 jobs. The Geelong unemployment rate is actually pretty good all up, at about six per cent, but not in any way helped by the state Labor government, which is actually causing enormous damage to the Victorian economy. I say to Daniel Andrews, to Labor, to Bill Shorten and to the local Labor MPs: have the courage to stand up for infrastructure and have the courage to invest in this project, because we need it. For the people of Geelong and for the people of Corangamite, it is absolutely vital.
There is no doubt that small business is the engine room of our economy. Small businesses are very dependent upon consumers and, of course, with the unemployment rate now the highest in 20 years, that unemployment rate has a material impact on overall business conditions. When you put that together with the constant talking down of our economy by the government, both when they were in opposition and now in government, that has also had a dramatic impact on small business and consumption—the sort of consumption on which small business depends for its profitability. We have had a lot of rhetoric and motions from those opposite supporting small business in our economy, and I certainly agree that small business is the engine room of the economy. It certainly makes the economy go round. But the sort of speeches that we have heard from those opposite show just how delusional they are, because they have been talking the economy down, shattering confidence and shattering business investment for well over five or six years.
They are only now realising the folly of that activity, because their deficit and debt scare campaign hit confidence for six. Consumer confidence at the budget was down 13 per cent. Business confidence at the budget was down 22 per cent. If you constantly talk the economy down, the economy does not grow, and the economy is weak at the moment with record levels of unemployment. Unemployment is above six per cent. We have not seen a figure like that for a very long period of time. Over 800,000 Australians are unemployed—the highest number since 1994. This is an embarrassment for the government, given how benign global economic conditions have been.
We did see a change of tack in the budget. We saw the government finally realise the folly of constantly exaggerating deficit and debt and talking our economy down. So what did they do to try and restore some confidence in the economy? They went back to a Labor initiative—the instant asset write-off, which they had abolished in 2013. They abolished the instant asset write-off, the accelerated depreciation for cars and the loss carry-back for those small businesses that were restructuring, taking $5 billion out of the economy. It has taken them two years to suddenly realise how dumb and destructive that decision was. It is good to see that they have realised their folly. It is good to see that they have brought the instant asset write-off back, in an attempt to restore some confidence in our economy. Of course, along with that we have seen this massive hit to public infrastructure investment—absolutely massive. Their own budget papers show that infrastructure investment is down 11 per cent across the forward estimates. The Prime Minister likes to waltz around the country claiming he is the 'infrastructure Prime Minister'. We had the pathetic example in the House last week of the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Truss, claiming credit for the construction of the Epping roundabout—the Epping crossing—which has been under construction because of the investment, planning and foresight of the last Labor government. He had the hide to stand up in the House and claim credit for it.
There are many such projects around Australia that are now being completed, and there will be no more, because so many of the projects that will enhance our economic capacity were put on the backburner by this government, which is not making the investment in infrastructure that our economy requires. There is a classic one in my home city: the cross-river rail, which is absolutely essential to the future public transport needs of our city. We had the foresight to invest in the Moreton Bay rail, as well. But even that will be impacted upon by the failure of the Commonwealth to invest in the critical project of cross-river rail.
The approach to economic-capacity-enhancing infrastructure is simply shambolic. If this country needs anything at the moment to give a boost to growth, what it really needs is for the public sector, and particularly the Commonwealth, to show the way and get in there with the states and get some of these projects going. But it is not happening, and it is most certainly not happening in my city.
Then you have the NBN. The NBN is important to every single business in our community. It is a shambles. They need that critical investment for their prosperity. (Time expired)
I rise to support the member for Reid's motion on small business and infrastructure investment. From hearing the member for Lilley I can say that we agree on one thing, and that is that small business is the engine room of our economy. I think that is probably best where I leave it.
The 2015-16 budget reaffirmed the government's $50 billion infrastructure investment commitment, the largest in our nation's history. Our commitment will deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century that our nation needs. We are carrying out projects right across Australia and, indeed, in my electorate of Barker. Local and regional communities also continue to benefit from the government's investment in infrastructure.
The coalition government is delivering more money for the Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot programs, with my electorate alone receiving $104 million through Roads to Recovery funding, with $15.4 million of that being announced recently as an additional injection of funds above and beyond the previously announced funds, with another $2.5 million for black spots.
We established the National Stronger Regions Fund, which in my case delivered $7.5 million to the South Australian Motorsport Park at Tailem Bend, which will see my electorate becoming not only the home of motor sport in South Australia, or indeed Australia, but quite possibly in the Southern Hemisphere, along with the many hundreds of direct and indirect jobs that will be created as a result of our decision.
This extra funding will deliver tangible benefits and make our roads safer and more reliable. This is a massive boost to funding for our regional road network, and I am looking forward to seeing the additional opportunities this decision will create for our local communities.
I am also delighted to be able to report to the Federation Chamber that the federal government is taking decisive action on moving stalled projects forward where state governments have failed to act, particularly in my electorate. The federal government has decided to provide all of the funding required to complete the state government's stalled Penola bypass project—a whopping $9 million. It has also resolved decades of inaction over the Penola and Wireless roads intersection, in Mt Gambier, with an allocation of $800,000. This intersection has been declared by the RAA as the most dangerous one in rural and regional South Australia.
For a very long time members of the Limestone Coast community have been frustrated and angry that these two projects have been subjected to indecision and delay, because nobody wanted to take responsibility for funding these important infrastructure projects. I said in October last year that for as long as I can remember the Limestone Coast had been talking about fixing the Wireless Road / Penola Road intersection and building the Penola bypass. Even though the Wireless Road / Penola Road intersection and indeed the Penola bypass are state government responsibilities, I have been relentlessly pursuing funding for these projects. With the help of Assistant Minister Briggs, I have now secured those funds.
I was also delighted that I successfully won the support of Assistant Minister Briggs and Treasurer Hockey to retain a significant portion of the Murray-Darling Basin Economic Diversification Program funding after the state Labor government refused to accept those federal funds. It is beyond comprehension that a state government with nation-leading levels of unemployment and facing serious financial distress would refuse federal government assistance, and all the more bizarre when this funding was secured by Premier Weatherill himself. I am grateful that Minister Briggs and Treasurer Hockey were not prepared to see struggling river communities in my electorate punished because of the reckless actions of the state Labor government, and allocated $6.9 million of the funding originally allocated to the Riverland and Murraylands for economic diversion to road widening and shoulder sealing of the Sturt Highway. These are funds which would otherwise have disappeared.
The Prime Minister made a commitment to be the infrastructure Prime Minister prior to the last election, and we are going about delivering that outcome, as we can see with the investment of $3.2 billion under the Roads to Recovery program, including an injection of $1.1 billion over the next two years. An extra $100 million over the next two years to accelerate road safety improvements through the Black Spot Program brings total investment up to $500 million. The Prime Minister and the coalition government are delivering the roads of the 21st century.
With us in the chamber today we have Ms Pamela Perre. Ms Perre was awarded young rural journo of the year in South Australia, and as a result of that she has won a trip to Canberra. Some would say it is a commiseration prize, but at least a day of that she will be spending with me. I congratulate Pam on her award. It is a significant achievement for a very young journalist.
I thank the member for Barker and I acknowledge the presence of his guest and assure her it is a privilege to attend Canberra.
This is a motion which is easy to support because it is a warm and fuzzy motion. It does not really tell you a lot but it makes a warm and fuzzy statement. 'Government should prioritise infrastructure investment to help small businesses grow.' That is a no-brainer; that is the role of government. I find it a bit odd and perplexing that the backbenchers of the government supported the motion without any real detail as to how they are going to help small businesses grow.
One of the speakers, the member for Corangamite, had a go at the state Labor government for sticking to their promise to scrap the East West Link, which was a dud tunnel. It would not have solved the congestion problems in the state of Victoria, and this government withdrew the vital infrastructure funding from Victoria which would have created jobs. They took it away from key projects like Melbourne Metro, took it away from regional road projects which would have actually helped—helped product get to a port and helped small businesses do the work that they need to do. What is also really perplexing about the member for Corangamite's speech is her obsession with going after the CFMEU. Perhaps she has not realised that construction workers are CFMEU members and so if you want to talk about construction jobs being created you are actually talking about creating CFMEU member jobs. So to have a go at the state government by saying that they are too close to the CFMEU when it is about construction jobs is a bit odd—unless of course this government is planning to use the ChAFTA as a way to bring in workers who undercut the wages of good local Australians, whether they be people working for subcontractors or working for contractors themselves. This government's plan about the China free trade agreement is different to every other agreement: it aims to undercut the wages and conditions of small businesses in this country—local tradies in my electorate. That is what the government is trying to hide behind fluffy motions like this.
As the member for Swan mentioned, this government is also not coming out and properly investing in the NBN. My electorate of Bendigo was knocked off the map. They screamed before the election that they would roll out the NBN sooner, faster and cheaper. Newsflash: what happened in areas like Central Victoria is that we were knocked off the map for two years. Now we have been put back on the map but still do not have a rollout plan. And, when we finally get that rollout plan, what is it going to be? Fibre to the node. Not fibre to the premises but fibre to the node, which will put back small businesses in my electorate even further. Just to highlight one of the crises that Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for Communications, has created in my electorate of Bendigo: four NBN towers have been built; three have been finished and one is waiting to be completed. There is a planning application problem. The frustration, though, for the people around the other three towers is that they can look at the towers but they cannot be switched on.
I go to some of the experiences that people have emailed me about. Currently a family is spending $70 a month for eight gigs. They run a small business from their home in Eppalock. Another family pays over $100 per month for 15 gigs. Another family can only access 3G mobile, which is very slow and drops out constantly, because they do not have proper internet available through the towers or through the landline. They are simply off the map when it comes to this government's plan for the NBN. Small businesses in Eppalock, Mt Camel, Goornong and Sedgewick are missing out on vital infrastructure because this government tore up Labor's plan, introduced a new plan, knocked Bendigo off the map and have to this day still not fixed the mess they made.
So, on behalf of the people in my electorate, I say, rather than putting forward motions which are light and fluffy, put forward a concrete plan that would see small businesses in Central Victoria connect to the NBN. The government have an obsession with talking down the economy. They seem to forget that consumers are the biggest drivers of small business. Goods and services are delivered by our small businesses. The government need to get real about supporting small business and put forward plans that will make a difference, not light and fluffy motions. (Time expired)
I am sure the member for Bendigo was referring to the member for Lilley, not the member for Swan during her speech.
Yes. Sorry about that.
It is always interesting to stand in this chamber or the other chamber to speak about small business and hear those opposite pontificate about their magnificent support of the small business sector in our country when we saw under the previous government a loss of small business jobs to the tune of hundreds of thousands and saw the percentage of people employed in the small business sector fall from 51 per cent to 43 per cent. That is the legacy that those opposite have left for the small business sector in our country, so I find it very interesting that they stand up and claim the moral high ground. There is not only that but they also foisted on our small business sector the biggest, most useless carbon tax in the history of this country. The current government removed that massive impost on our small business sector. This side of the House has consistently, throughout the years, stood up for our small business sector, because we recognise that they are the engine room of the Australian economy. They employ 4.5 million people around Australia and produce some $330 billion of economic output.
This motion relates to the importance of infrastructure for small business. It is true that infrastructure is incredibly important to our small business sector to allow it to survive and flourish. Our small business people, such as our tradies, travel on our roads every day trying to get from one job to the next, but those opposite have failed to recognise that this government has rolled out one of the biggest infrastructure programs in Australia's history. New road and freight corridors are being built right across the country. It is interesting to note that state governments of the colour of those opposite have sought to cancel infrastructure projects which would have aided the small business sector in their communities.
In my electorate of Forde there are more than 11,000 small businesses. Many of these utilise Highway M1 connecting the Gold Coast and Brisbane, two major business hubs. We have a problem with the M1; it is nearing capacity and congestion is affecting many of the small businesses in my electorate, costing them thousands of dollars in time and resources every single day. Through setting up the Fix the M1 Taskforce we have committed to working towards obtaining the funding to fix this critical piece of infrastructure in South-East Queensland and find a solution. Investment in improved infrastructure benefits all businesses through their ability to generate economic growth and job creation, boosting not only our local, but also our regional economies. I would like to thank the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Truss, for his support in helping us seek a commitment to secure the funding to fix the M1 bottleneck between the Logan and Gateway Motorways.
In addition, the federal government has already committed $10 million to fix Exit 54, at upper Coomera, at the interchange with the M1, where a growing population and business community has struggled with congestion for many years. This piece of investment from the federal government will allow the new interchange to be built, significantly saving time for local businesses to get down to the Gold Coast or up to Brisbane. More importantly, it will allow the Coomera town centre to proceed, which, once opened, has the potential to provide several thousand jobs in the retail sector. Also in that space it will provide numerous jobs during the construction phase of the interchange, but also during the construction phase of the upper Coomera town centre. There are plenty of other business opportunities that have been waiting in the wings until decisions were made. I had the pleasure of turning the first sod on that project a week or so ago.
This government has proven, through its actions to date and its action going forward, that we are committed to building and delivering on the infrastructure that this country needs for the 21st century to allow our small business sector to continue to grow and prosper. (Time expired)
I wanted to contribute to this private member's motion about the significant link that exists between infrastructure and small business, because it is an issue that has very much been at the forefront for many of my constituents over the last 12 to 18 months. Their concerns regard the infrastructure of the future—that is, the actual rollout of fast and reliable broadband that enables small and medium businesses, in particular home-based businesses, to be able to flourish. As a result of the change of government the rollout of the national broadband network was delayed. There was a period of about 12 months while very little happened as the new government determined what sort of technology it was going to use. There has been an understandable increase in frustration for those suburbs in my area that were anticipating getting more reliable broadband. That has led to a number of very significant grassroots campaigns.
I want to first of all refer to a Facebook campaign that was started by Karen and Mark McKenzie of the northern suburbs of my electorate. It is Facebook 2508+ Disconnected, a tremendous campaign. They experienced four years of delay and frustration in dealing with Telstra and in trying to get broadband to their new home—they had relocated from Sydney. In particular, they were frustrated about not being able to access broadband when they were told that it was available at their home. They went onto Facebook just to see and get a feel for the size of the problem. They have been absolutely inundated with people across those suburbs experiencing significant frustration. I quote directly from Mark's comments to me:
Key among the issues being experienced by this community are poor levels of internet service and internet reliability that are currently constraining the productivity of the many home-based businesses operating in the area. In a recent survey completed by the campaign organisers, more than 50% of respondents indicated that they were operating a home business—
that is right: 50 per cent of those who responded were operating a home business—
that was being negatively impacted by poor internet service.
The survey also revealed that more than 66% of respondents rated service reliability "poor" to "very poor" while a whopping 88% rated internet speeds as "poor" to "very poor"—with average download speeds regularly below 1MBps.
This is, of course, in a range of suburbs in the north of my seat, where people are located very close to Sydney. A lot of people—professionals, home-based businesses and consultants—relocate there, because it is a very beautiful part of the world and a lovely place to live, and discover the absolutely appalling standard of telecommunications infrastructure that they are faced with.
This campaign is not alone. For quite a while now I have been working with the Bundeena and Maianbar business chamber. They are also frustrated with both mobile and broadband services, and Scott Dovey, who is the president, has put an extensive and very detailed report together on the impacts of the very poor quality telecommunications infrastructure in their suburbs. In February 2015 the Bundeena Maianbar Chamber of Commerce ran a community survey. They had a total of 197 responses to that, which is about a 20 per cent response rate. They are a fairly small community, so it is actually quite a large percentage. They found that service interruptions for landline phones and internet were widespread, frequent and prolonged. Most internet connections via ADSL were very slow, if they worked at all. The average speed was around 3.25 megabits per second. Almost a third of the respondents in that survey indicated that they rely on their landline telephone to run their own business.
In recent years we have seen a huge shift in small businesses—in many of our electorates, I am sure—becoming home-based businesses, whether that is a direct business or a consultancy service, and these people are increasingly frustrated by the telecommunications infrastructure that services them. We have a new mobile base station being established at Coalcliff, and I have written to the minister seeking more detail on what that will actually provide in its time frame. I acknowledge that the minister is meeting with my constituents this week, and I am particularly asking him to give very serious consideration to their extensive concerns. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that May was Lyme Project month, a time when the Lyme Disease Association of Australia raises awareness and funds to provide ongoing advocacy for people living with Lyme disease;
(2) recognises that Lyme disease can be debilitating and have a devastating impact on the lives of people living with it; and
(3) works with the Lyme disease Association of Australia to accept Lyme disease as a disease, undertake research, develop a national plan to collect statistics and develop treatments for people living with Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is an infectious disease caused by bacteria carried and spread by ticks. This is a disease that does not receive the acknowledgement or recognition in Australia that it should. The disease is becoming a global epidemic. It is currently affecting the lives of thousands of Australians, many within the electorate of Shortland. Lyme disease can be caused by a bite from an infectious tick, and there is a growing body of evidence—this adds to it—that it can also be transmitted by fleas and mosquitoes, transplacentally from the mother to the foetus, and through unprotected sex.
Lyme disease is a disease that is having an impact on many Australians, and it may mimic other diseases. Many Australians with Lyme disease spend years in the Australian medical system being misdiagnosed, while the pathogens infect their body and have a chance to propagate and cause damage. It is really important to be able to identify Lyme disease early and then deal with it. Australians are getting sick from tick bites, while local, federal and state governments are refusing to acknowledge the Lyme pathogens. Australian medical practitioners are not telling patients who were bitten by fleas in Australia that their symptoms could possibly be Lyme disease related. A recent study by Murdoch University announced in late June this year found Lyme pathogens in Australian ticks, which supports a growing number of historic studies that have found pathogens in Australia. Governments are denying that Lyme disease is in ticks in Australia, but this research has shown that it does exist. Lyme disease can be eradicated if the affected person takes antibiotics for a prescribed period as soon as possible after they are bitten. Not acknowledging and not treating Australians with Lyme disease is having an enormous impact.
One constituent wrote to me:
There is no use promoting a free hospital service—this is what a Lyme disease sufferer said—if they cannot get the support that they need. I know that this has been debated over a long period of time, but pathology tests must change and doctors must learn more about Lyme disease. I believe that we need to deal with Lyme disease and think of how we dealt with HIV and AIDS in the beginning—this could be similar to that. People are travelling overseas to get treatment because they are being misdiagnosed back home.
I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about an email I received from a constituent who was a public servant working for the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. She contracted the disease through her work, and she was one of seven National Parks and Wildlife Service staff that have succumbed to the disease. One of her colleagues, Natalie Young, was medically retired from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service because of the disability she suffered. She won her appeal with the Workers Compensation Commission, which recognised the fact that her illness was caused by a bite from a tick with Lyme disease. The constituent that wrote to me said that she counts herself lucky, because her treatment costs have been paid for by her employer and are being supported by her workplace.
I have to conclude by saying that I am disappointed that no-one from the other side is speaking on this—and I say that not in political terms. I have been contacted by Sharon Whiteman from the Lyme Disease Association of Australia. I know she has been contacting members on the other side of the House, and she has told me that the National Party is championing this for her. Why aren't they here speaking on the motion? (Time expired)
I thank the member for moving this motion. Is there a seconder?
I second the motion.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Shortland. I know she has been a champion on this issue and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, that were you not in the chair you would probably take the opportunity to speak on this motion as well. As the chair of the House Standing Committee on Health, you were very agreeable to the proposition which was put before that committee—without giving anything improper away—of the committee holding a round table of experts and interested advocate patient groups into the existence of Lyme disease in Australia. I am pleased to say, as I am sure the member for Shortland said, that on 18 September in Parliament House we will be conducting such a round table. I think that is an important opportunity to shine a bit more light on what is going on here.
Lyme disease is an infection transmitted by the bite of ticks—we know that—particularly ticks which are carrying the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria. The effects of the infection can be long term and disabling unless they are treated and treated quickly, typically with a course of antibiotics. The name, incidentally, derives its name from the town in Connecticut where the disease was first discovered in 1975; members of the House might be interested to know that. It is also present in many other areas—temperate regions—across the globe, including in Europe, Canada and North Asia, where a wide variety of the Borreliabacteria exist. Several species of the Ixodes tickhave been distributed and have been discovered throughout these countries and in North America as well. We know that these particular types of tick also exist in Australia, and I will have more to say about such discoveries and the incidence of this disease in Australia.
As the member for Shortland has pointed out, there is some contention about whether the bacteria exist in a native form here in Australia. But what there is no contention about is whether the disease actually exists and whether there are people in Australia who have contracted the disease—absolutely, there is no contention about that. Indeed, the capacity for them to get the sort of clinical attention and treatment that they need is, in fact, being undermined by the lack of certainty within the medical and scientific community about the existence of these bacteria and the ticks which bear them, which then goes on to influence the most appropriate forms of clinical practice and the distribution of knowledge around the most appropriate forms of practice.
Critics and patient advocates argue that Borreliado exist here. They are very critical of what they call a flawed 20-year-old study which has pointed the other way. They say that there is also evidence to suggest that these ticks, which bear the bacteria, do exist here in Australia. Indeed, they gain some heart from a recent study which found the existence of a Borellia-type bacterium within a native tick which was extracted from an echidna, and they say that that points to unequivocal evidence that the bacteria are in existence here in Australia.
I turn now to government action to date. In 2012 there was a clinical advisory committee on Lyme disease, which was established to look at evidence around Lyme disease. It was asked to provide advice on the extent of the disease in Australia, best-practice diagnostic testing and the most appropriate forms of treatment. The CACLD first met in March 2013 and agreed on the need for further research; however, there were many different views on the committee, and the committee was, unfortunately, disbanded in July 2014. We do not know why it was disbanded. Indeed, the establishment of a health committee round table, getting together all of the people who have an interest with some of the members from that CACLD involved may shed some light on why this committee, which was charged by the federal government, was disbanded and on how we can take this issue forward.
In the time remaining to me, I would say that it behoves all of us, as parliamentarians, not to substitute our knowledge for that of the medical and scientific experts. But it also behoves us to shine a light on where we think there are gaps in our knowledge, and it is certainly true that the things that we focus on are also the things that the community and our scientists and our medical experts will focus on. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make further contribution to this debate without closing it, and, in doing so, I acknowledge the Lions Association whose members are here in the gallery today.
Is leave granted?
Mr Deputy Speaker, given the member for Shortland's intense interest in this matter, which I respect, leave is granted.
An honourable member: I thank the government for allowing the mover to speak, with the speaker who was supposed to be here being absent. But I would like to personally thank the government whip here for allowing this member to move this motion again.
I would like to give my personal thanks to the member for Bass, because Lyme disease is a disease that has impacted on the lives of many Australians.
I now call the member for Shortland!
by leave—I start my contribution by thanking the member for Bass for his generosity in allowing me to speak again to this private member's motion. It is really important that Lyme disease is recognised in Australia. It is really important because it is having an effect on so many people throughout the nation. In the Shortland electorate I have been contacted by at least 20 people whose lives have been impacted on by Lyme disease. I also thank the Lyme Association for the extra information that they have provided me with. I acknowledge that May was Lyme project month—something I did not do in my original contribution to this debate. I am really pleased that the health committee has agreed to hold a roundtable about Lyme disease on 18 September in Sydney. I think we will get a lot of information that will lead to this debate being taken forward. As the member for Throsby said, I know that you would be here speaking on this debate if you were not in the chair, Deputy Speaker Irons, because you are passionate about all issues of health. I know that when we look at the issue we will get a complete understanding.
I visited one family where the mother had been living with Lyme for quite some time. She was unable to do the most basic day-to-day things. Her husband showed me the cabinet with all her medicines in it—the medicines that she had to take on a daily basis. She was taking up to 20 medicines a day, over time. They had a small business and he was trying to continue with the business without her input into it. The children in the family had taken on the caring role. There was very little that this constituent could do, because of the impact that it had on her life. I have been contacted by mums of children who have Lyme disease. I have been contacted by other constituents who have told me about the trauma that they experience when they turn up at an accident and emergency department only to be told that there is nothing wrong.
The misdiagnoses that take place cause enormous hardship and problems for the person. It is not only the physical aspects of living with Lyme that are a problem; it is also the psychological aspects that are associated with it—not being able to perform the role that you have performed over a long period of time, not being able to work, which has a financial impact upon a person's life and that of their family, and not being able to enjoy the things that everybody has the expectation they will be able to enjoy. Add to that the simple fact of misdiagnosis and how you have to adjust to that.
People are being told that they have motor neurone disease or Parkinson's disease, then finding that those diseases are progressing and finding that the symptoms have changed. Finally you would find a doctor who takes you seriously, understands and knows about Lyme disease and enables you to have the right sorts of tests to determine whether you have Lyme disease. Quite often the only way that a successful diagnosis will be made is if the pathology test is undertaken overseas. Pathology in Australia does not get to the issue, does not look at it properly. We need to really recognise that the Borrelia infection does exist and that it is transferred by ticks, and understand that it is having an enormous impact on the lives of a number of Australians. (Time expired)
I thank members for their contributions. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence of the Lyme Disease Association guests here in the chamber and would encourage them to continue their fight and to look at some outcomes from the adhesive arachnoiditis inquiry we held, which has furthered the cause of that particular issue.
Debate adjourned.
I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
I welcome the opportunity to once again highlight the trifecta of mutually beneficial free trade agreements concluded by the Abbott government. I have spoken many times before of the huge benefits of these free trade deals for my home state of Tasmania in particular, and that is because free trade—more trade—means new markets, new investments and more jobs across the entire economy.
But I regret to inform the House that not everyone thinks that way. It is very clear from the union campaign being run against the China free trade agreement that those opposite and their union handlers have little regard for the beneficial effects of growing regional trade. The suggestion that Australia's free trade agreement with China will open the floodgates for foreign workers is, frankly, false, xenophobic and irresponsible. This union campaign demonises China—remember, our biggest trading partner—and even former Labor leader Simon Crean has publicly called on the opposition leader to back this free trade deal, which will be good for jobs and good for the economy.
But it should not surprise that the opposition leader ignores such good advice, because again I regret to say he has form in this area. It is regrettable to recall him clambering onto a flatbed truck at a union rally in Adelaide last September. He gave a speech that The Australian newspaper wrote was 'an inexcusable performance' that 'stank with racist and protectionist rhetoric'. Instead of acting like a statesman and highlighting that Japan, China and South Korea are vital trading partners, Mr Shorten said we should think of Japan as an enemy responsible for sinking 366 merchant ships off Australia in the Second World War. In suggesting that Japan was still our enemy, the member for Maribyrnong confirmed he was unfit to be the alternative Prime Minister of our country. I remind those opposite that the provisions in the China FTA are entirely consistent with those previously signed by the Labor Party, and it is reckless for union officials, supported by Labor, to launch a campaign that opposes an agreement which will result in new investment and new local jobs, including in Tasmania.
The opposition leader's comments confirm again how beholden his leadership is to the most militant elements of the union movement, like the CFMEU, which funds this dishonest and xenophobic anti-China campaign. Remember that the opposition leader sat in this parliament smiling at, listening to and applauding the leaders of Japan and China. He said he supported these free trade deals, the thousands of local jobs they will create and the billions of dollars that they will bring and add to our economy. Yet Mr Shorten's actions tell an entirely different story. Labor and their union colleagues deliberately ignore provisions in the China FTA which make it abundantly clear that:
The department will only enter into a project labour agreement where it has been satisfied that Australians have been provided first opportunity for jobs.
Ms Parke interjecting—
There we go. Here we have the member opposite interjecting. I might remind the member about the front page in The Australian this morning, where unions appear to be using the same provisions to hire workplace relations advisers, copywriters, database administrators and training professionals from overseas. Surely there must be some workplace relations advisers in Australia they can draw on without getting them from overseas. So what rank hypocrisy from the member opposite! These are inconvenient facts that expose the union-led, Labor-supported scare campaign, which is irrational—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding use of an unparliamentary term.
I heard no such unparliamentary term.
My time is ticking away.
But, if it assists the House, the member will withdraw.
I used no unparliamentary term, but if it assists the House, Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. These free trade deals will provide enormous opportunities for Australians in decades to come. They account for 61 per cent of our goods exports and 19 per cent of our services trade. When fully implemented, more than 95 per cent of our exports to China will enter duty-free. The FTA with Korea will see 99.8 per cent of Korea's tariffs eliminated on full implementation, and our FTA with Japan is the first they have signed with a major agricultural exporter, giving 97.5 per cent of our exports duty-free or preferential entry into the world's third-largest economy. So I call on this parliament to get behind the extraordinary benefits of the Asian century in a bipartisan way, and cease this xenophobic campaign. (Time expired)
I seek leave to continue my contribution on this motion concerning FTAs.
An honourable member interjecting—
The debate is open. Order! The member for Fremantle has sought leave to continue her speech without closing the debate; is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Can we restart the clock as well, thanks.
Since the motion was last debated, the text of the ChAFTA has been released and, as AFTINET's excellent submission to the treaties committee shows, it reveals extraordinary concessions by the Australian government to China, of a type and level unseen in any of Australia's other FTAs. Government denials about these concessions constitute a serious misrepresentation to the Australian people.
The provisions on temporary movement of people are contained in four different documents: in chapter 10 of the agreement, in a side-letter to the agreement, and in two MOUs that were negotiated as a condition of the agreement. Chapter 10 of the agreement provides explicitly that there will be no labour market testing or economic needs test for any categories of temporary skilled workers. The side-letter states that Australia will remove the requirement for mandatory skills assessment for 10 occupations, including electricians, mechanics and carpenters, and will aim to reduce or eliminate skills assessment for all occupations within two years.
Despite the government's unprincipled denials, together Chapter 10 and the side-letter clearly remove local labour market testing and skills assessment for temporary workers in skilled occupations. There is thus no guarantee that temporary workers will have the same level of skills, health and safety knowledge and qualifications as required for local workers, thus creating serious safety issues for themselves, other workers and the general community.
A separate MOU on an investment facilitation arrangement provides that, where a Chinese enterprise owns at least 15 per cent of a project worth $150 million, it may bring in an unlimited number of temporary workers, with the terms and conditions of their employment, the English language requirements, qualifications and experience and minimum wage to be subject to negotiations between the department of immigration and the company. There will be no requirement for local labour market testing. There is a significant risk that these workers will be isolated from the local workforce and will thus be very vulnerable to exploitation. Given the lack of enforcement of the existing 457 visa regime, it is hard to see how the community will be able to feel comfortable about such arrangements, which will occur behind closed doors, hidden behind claims of commercial-in-confidence.
There is a further MOU by which Australia will grant, each year, 5,000 work and holiday visas to Chinese young people with a tertiary education, for working holidays; however, this arrangement is not reciprocal for Australians in China. There is also no reference in the MOU to compliance with Australian laws and workplace standards, so this would seem to be another potential area ripe for exploitation.
As with our FTA with Korea, the ChAFTA also contains ISDS provisions. However, the ChAFTA provisions—including important matters such as the definition of indirect expropriation and the minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors—are not complete and have been delegated to a committee to review in three years' time. One wonders how a country like Australia, with battalions of bureaucrats and lawyers, could sign up to an agreement that is not finished, unless it was a politically-driven decision to just get it done without regard to the consequences. It is also difficult to see how the Australian parliament could be asked to vote on implementing legislation for the agreement without having details as to the future provisions.
Regarding the ISDS clauses that are in the agreement, they demonstrate less transparency than the KAFTA, as they do not require ISDS hearings and documents to be made public. Given the recent imported frozen berries scandal, it is also extremely concerning that, while the KAFTA excludes ISDS from application to the 'Technical barriers to trade' chapter, which includes food labelling, the ChAFTA does not. Why did the Australian government not seek specific protection of food labelling from ISDS in ChAFTA?
As the AFTINET submission notes, in October last year the Australian Industry Group reported that a survey of its members found that many manufactured goods coming from China do not meet Australian safety and quality regulations, including dangerously faulty electrical cables which could have affected up to 40,000 homes and businesses. However, rather than strengthening the assessment of imports for conformity with Australian safety and quality standards, the government—through ChAFTA—is doing the very reverse, in reducing import controls and assessments. Unlike KAFTA, ChAFTA also does not contain chapters on labour environment, which means that neither government has made any commitments not to reduce labour rights or environmental standards, nor to implement ILO rights or international environmental agreements. This means that ChAFTA, in effect, rewards violations of labour and environmental standards by granting preferential market access to Australia for goods produced in substandard conditions.
Finally, I think it is important to say—as did Rep John Conyers, a Detroit democrat, in the context of the recent TPP debate—that instead of asking about implications for economic growth I hope my colleagues ask: 'Is this policy good for living standards, the health of the planet, creating jobs with dignity, promoting peace and ensuring an educated populous?' The truth is that, as the Productivity Commission has found, these so-called free trade agreements stand to undermine the high-quality social, economic, health, workforce and environmental standards that countries like Australia have painstakingly established.
I thank the member for Fremantle who spoke before for their contribution, because it was that delivery that crystallises for every Australian that those on the other side of the House are not in support of the free trade agreements. They suspect that the free trade agreement brings with it issues of national security—I think they alluded to that—and it brings about issues of conflict in the way of environment and a number of other issues. Once you understand that that is the position of the other side, espoused in this very place, you now know why Labor, when in government for six or seven years—with a foreign minister, who was previously the Prime Minister—had no intention whatsoever of dealing with the issues of free trade. I commend the excellent work that has been done in this place by our trade minister and the work that has been done by the office of Minister Robb, on delivering economic reform that will have an immediate benefit not only in Australia but in my electorate.
The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement is the most liberalised bilateral trade agreement that Japan, our second-largest trading partner, has ever concluded, providing Australian exporters, importers, investors and producers a significant advantage over their international competitors. Japanese Prime Minister Abe was warmly and openly received by both sides of the House. It beggars belief that today you would have speakers from the other side of this House rise to not only contradict their own leader's position when in the company of a foreign dignitary but truly show their underbelly and how much those on the other side of this chamber detest the fact that the world is becoming a smaller place and that free trade agreements are a necessity.
More than 97 per cent of Australian exporters to Japan will receive preferential access to enter duty free when the free trade agreements are fully implemented. The agreement would also deliver major benefits to local consumers, with tariffs to be eliminated on Japanese cars and parts and a wide range of household items including whitegoods and electronics. What that potentially means is that, when tariffs are removed from the stuff we are currently buying from Japan that has tariffs on it, the benefit will flow directly to households. We came to this election saying that we wanted to reduce the cost of living. This is one of the mechanisms by which we will achieve these outcomes. Admittedly, one does not go out and buy a fridge, a washing machine, a Toyota or a Mitsubishi every week but, when those capital purchases are made in the fullness of time, these free trade agreements will provide a cheaper cost of living to the Australian public and that should be celebrated. Cheaper imported items from Japan, including cars, increases the choice buying power of local households, and ultimately leads to the improvement of living standards for Australians.
With reference to the Korean free trade agreement, it is a world-class comprehensive agreement that has sustainably liberalised Australia's free trade agreement with our fourth largest trading partner. The agreement helps to level the playing field for Australian exporters competing with those from the United States, the European Union, Chile and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, who benefit from the existing trade deals.
In the time that is allowed to me, I want to go to the union movement, who the Australian Labor Party rely so heavily on for funding. On the television at the moment, they are running a scare campaign advocating that the free trade agreement is not good for our country. The premise of that advertisement is fundamentally flawed given that they use the example of an electrician, saying that an electrician can come here and does not have to have the qualifications. To trade as an electrician in Australia, you need to meet the Australian minimum standards. I am interested to see whether the next speaker intends to rebut that point. It fundamentally underpins the falseness or the flaw in that television campaign, and I look forward to listening to the next speaker's contribution.
I think that all in this place agree that good-quality free trade agreements improve the economic welfare of this country. Unfortunately many aspects of the three agreements we are discussing today are not good-quality free trade agreements. The truth is that the coalition government have sold out Australia on these agreements just as they sold out Australia on the US free trade agreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66(alfa) there is an opportunity for members opposite to either ask a short question or to provide a 30-second intervention, and I would ask the honourable member for Charlton whether he would be willing to accept an intervention on what he has just said about the quality of these free trade agreements.
Do you accept that?
I do not, because I will be addressing that in my remarks. The truth is that saying that a free trade agreement benefits all is grossly overstated and exaggerated. This is not from me; this is from the Productivity Commission. For example, the Howard government claimed that the US FTA would deliver $4 billion per year of benefits to the Australian economy. Studies have shown that the copyright provisions alone cost $700 million. The Productivity Commission study found a $700 million cost from the copyright changes alone. The Crawford School of Public Policy, Australia's pre-eminent trade academic institution has found that the US FTA diverted trade by $52 billion and actually led to a decline in trade between the United States and Australia.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
I ask the member for Bass to sit.
The truth is they do not want to hear the truth on these free trade agreements. There is a reason they were not negotiated under the last government: because we were sticking up for the automotive industry and against the implications of these FTAs for the automotive industry, and then you killed the automotive industry.
The other sticking point is the investor-state dispute settlement clauses, clauses that give foreign corporations more power to sue the Australian government than home-based corporations. These are clauses that are opposed not only by the Labor Party but also by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, hardly a Labor puppet. They are also opposed by the Productivity Commission. The pre-eminent free trade institution in this country opposes ISDS clauses and says that they reduce the net benefit to Australia. The truth is that these agreements are sub-optimal. They impact negatively on the welfare of Australia in many areas, including the ISDS clauses. On the China free trade agreement, the labour mobility clauses are unprecedented in selling out the rights of Australians. The IFAs provide no requirement for labour market testing. All we have seen is a vague flow chart from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that they somehow would think about labour market testing at some point in the future. I say to the government: if they are certain they will test the labour market, put it in legislation—amend the Migration Act to confirm that labour market testing will apply to IFAs and other provisions under the China free trade agreement.
The second aspect of the labour mobility provisions that is very worrying goes to the requirement to only pay the minimum wage and not the market rate. That has the effect of driving down wages in this country. If you are only required to pay the minimum wage—rather than, for example, the enterprise agreement wage—you are going to drive down wages in these very important professions.
Thirdly, chapter 10 of the free trade agreement makes it very clear that, if you purchase Chinese capital equipment, you can bring in Chinese labour to install and service that equipment. Chapter 10 makes it very clear that will occur without labour market testing and without any requirement to pay market rates of pay.
The truth is that those on the other side are very sensitive about this agreement, because it is cutting in their electorates. It is cutting in their electorates because they are selling out Australian worker's rights. They are selling out the rights of Australian workers on two fundamental premises: to test the labour market and to pay market rates of pay. They are two fundamental principles that we will keep driving home, because the free trade agreement, as presently constructed, will hurt Australian workers, will drive down wages and will not be to the net benefit of Australia.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) established in 2010, the Indigenous Marathon Project (IMP) plays a valuable role in promoting healthy lifestyles in Indigenous communities, creating Indigenous role models and inspiring Indigenous people;
(b) the IMP is part of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation (IMF), a health promotion charity that changes lives through running and that celebrates and showcases incredible Indigenous achievement and resilience;
(c) through the IMP, young Indigenous men and women aged from 18 to 30 are given the opportunity to unearth their own sense of self-worth and pride by completing a full marathon;
(d) participants in the IMP mostly train in their communities, attending four one-week training and education camps, and must complete a Certificate III in Fitness, acquire a Sports Aid Certificate and attain both Level I and II Accreditation in Recreational Running Coaching with Athletics Australia;
(e) the capstone achievement of the IMP is for participants to represent their families and communities and complete the biggest marathon in the world, in the biggest city in the world, the famous New York City Marathon held each November;
(f) in the last five years, the IMP has successfully graduated 43 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island men and women with 11 more enrolled in this year's program, coming from remote communities, regional towns and major cities;
(g) most of these IMP graduates had never run before, but in just six months, had all run a full 42.2 kilometre marathon, with the motto 'the harder the struggle, the greater the reward', which builds self-worth and self-belief by setting difficult goals and achieving them; and
(h) in communities around Australia, graduates of the IMP have continued to run, established running and walking groups and organised hundreds of 'Deadly Fun Runs' each year that encourage local communities to lead active lifestyles and help reduce the incidence of disease and social dysfunction; and
(2) commends the work of Rob de Castella and his team in helping to change lives through the IMF and the IMP.
As we stood in the pre-dawn light, the moisture from our breath condensing in the air, someone announced that the Queanbeyan temperature had risen to zero. We were in a park with a group known as the Deadly Runners. Formed by Georgia Gleeson last year, the goal was to build fitness and pride in the local Indigenous community, with the goal of running the five-kilometre Mother's Day Classic. All 10 Deadly Runners successfully completed the run. Later that year Georgia again offered a similar program. At the start of the program, some participants could not run for more than a couple of minutes; by the end, all of them successfully completed the five-kilometre Tuggeranong parkrun.
Georgia's inspiration came from her participation in Rob de Castella's Indigenous Marathon Project. The project gives young Indigenous men and women the opportunity to unearth their own sense of self worth and pride by completing a marathon. The participants also complete a Certificate IV in Leisure and Health to educate and motivate the community on the benefits of an active and healthy lifestyle. The IMP helped change Georgia's life, from being what she describes as an unfit smoker to competing in the 2013 New York City Marathon. I was struck by the sense of fun that Georgia creates in her morning running group and her ability to use running to help build a more connected community.
Georgia has also helped shape my running career, encouraging me to become a supporter of the Indigenous Marathon Project. Having run the Gold Coast Marathon in July to raise funds for the Indigenous Marathon Project, I will be joining other members of the Indigenous Marathon Project squad to compete in this year's New York marathon. That squad includes Daniel Lloyd, Chris Guyula, Dwayne Jones, Aaron West, John Leha, Alicia Sabatino, Harriet David, Jaeme Bird, Jacinta Gurruwiwi, Eileen Beyers and Jessica Lovett-Murray. It is an inspiration to be working with these members, the IMP squad, each of whose stories of hard work are truly inspirational.
The Indigenous Marathon Project was established in 2009 by Rob de Castella, founded to provide four remote Indigenous men—Charlie Maher, Caleb Hart, Joseph Davies and Juan Darwin—with the chance to run the New York City Marathon, held each November. The 2011 evaluation report to the Department of Health and Ageing indicated the benefits the initiative provided to the community. It gives young Indigenous men and women from 18 to 30 the opportunity to unearth their own sense of self-worth and pride by completing a full marathon. These skills are then used to assist community members, so it is not just the individual that runs the marathon but also their whole community who benefit from the Indigenous Marathon Project.
In the last five years, IMP has successfully graduated 43 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women, with 11 more enrolled in this year's project. Running is accessible to everyone, and it is hard work for everyone. The Deadly Fun Runs organised around Australia encourage local communities to lead active lifestyles and reduce the incidence of disease and social dysfunction.
The Indigenous Marathon Project is part of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation, a health promotion charity that changes lives through running and celebrates and showcases incredible Indigenous achievement and resilience. Rob de Castella is somebody whose hard work is inspirational for so many Australians. I remember as a child watching him running in the Commonwealth Games and being awestruck by his winning times in the Boston Marathon. The notion of running a marathon in 2:07 is well beyond my wildest dreams, but Rob has been a great help and personal inspiration to me in my own running career. I know also some members of this House have their own marathon backgrounds behind them—not just the Prime Minister but the Chief Opposition Whip and the member for Kingsford Smith are among the keen runners in this House.
This Father's Day, 6 September, the Indigenous Marathon Foundation will launch a major community fundraiser in Centennial Park, Sydney, and simultaneously in about a dozen other communities across Australia. Called the Indigenous Marathon Foundation Father's Day WARRIOR Fun Run, it will seek to promote, highlight and celebrate what it is to be a noble warrior, a good man and a great father. It is being hosted in partnership with Shane Phillips's Redfern-based Tribal Warrior local men's group and the local Sydney Cadigal people, and I wish all participants the best of luck.
Do I have a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. I thank the member for Fraser for introducing this motion into the House. Unlike the member for Fraser I have absolutely no ability at all on the running track. Indeed, the last run I went in was a 10-kilometre run around the Dubbo zoo, and at one stage some misguided child tried to feed me peanuts, thinking that I was one of the elephants. But I am pleased to speak on the Indigenous Marathon Project. I actually have found out a little bit more about this in recent times, because the member for Fraser mentioned the original runners in Rob de Castella's project that went to New York, and one of those is Charlie Maher. Charlie Maher is now the director for the Clontarf Foundation South Dubbo campus and is doing a wonderful job with the young boys with the Clontarf program. Indeed, I was chatting with Charlie only a couple of weeks ago, when I was up at South Dubbo at the academy, and he was telling me what was happening with the boys in Dubbo and a little bit about the run that he has just come back from, where he has run in the marathon in Japan. Charlie grew up in a settlement a couple of hundred kilometres out of Alice Springs, from—he will tell you himself—pretty disadvantaged circumstances. With a combination of the Clontarf Foundation and the hand-up given by Rob de Castella, Charlie is now using the skills that he has, and the great way that he is held within the community, to mentor younger men and doing much the same.
Another young Dubbo resident, Nathan Riley, ran in last year's New York City Marathon. He ran the fastest time of the team there, and I think it was the coldest New York City Marathon for some time. Nathan is a wonderful role model. Since he has been back from New York, he has held two IMP Deadly Fun Runs, and in the last one he had over 91 boys involved in the Deadly Fun Run. As little as a couple of weeks ago, while the tryouts were being held at Barden Park in Dubbo for the team for next year's marathon, Nathan was once again there running with the boys, encouraging them to participate.
This is a project that has come from harnessing what many of these young men and women have as a natural ability to run; they just have not had the circumstances and the ability to compete. I can remember Rob de Castella speaking about one of his original runners from Maningrida. One of the problems in training at Maningrida was that every time you were in the tanks at Maningrida and broke into a run you would end up with a pack of dogs hot on your heels. So it was very difficult for that person to train in his home town, so coming away and training with Rob de Castella was certainly a great benefit to him.
This project uses running to change lives. The core running squad push their physical and mental boundaries to a whole new level, and after crossing the finishing line of the biggest marathon in the world they know that they can achieve anything. These runners are trained to become healthy lifestyle leaders by completing a Certificate IV in Leisure and Health, with a focus on Indigenous healthy lifestyle. The qualification is used to promote community-based health and exercise initiatives, including the Deadly Fun Run series. Runners become role models within their communities and are leaders in the promotion of health and physical exercise to address the high incidence of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and renal failure.
Those two wonderful examples I have just used—Charlie Maher and Nathan Riley in Dubbo—are doing exactly that. As someone who represents a lot of Aboriginal people in this place, it is great to be able to speak about something that actually makes a difference and works. I have heard various speeches made in this chamber—some as recently as last week—of a great political nature, and quite often the best results are the ones that do not come from large, grand schemes but just involve someone like Rob de Castella rolling up his sleeves, seeing a need and applying himself to it, and young men like Charlie Maher and Nathan Riley stepping up to the plate, overcoming the disadvantage of their youth and becoming community leaders.
It is a pleasure to rise today and to add my support to the motion before the House brought forward by the member for Fraser. While in nature and name the Indigenous Marathon Project is a sport program, as we have already heard, in reality it is so much more. It is a program of social change. It deserves recognition in this place and more broadly as a vehicle of change for hundreds if not thousands of Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.
As noted in the terms of the motion, the project was established in 2010 as a vehicle to promote healthy lifestyles in Indigenous communities, creating Indigenous role models and inspiring Indigenous people. To be successful, the program needed a determined leader and role model, and in Rob de Castella it has both. Rob is widely remembered for his surge to victory in the 1982 Commonwealth Games marathon on the streets of Brisbane and his world record marathon run that led to him being acknowledged as Australian of the Year in 1983. But in my eyes, and in the eyes of many, his true legacy will be for Indigenous Australians.
Since its inception, 43 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women have graduated from the program, with another 11 enrolled in this year's program. In simple terms, 54 individuals benefiting from the program is impressive. However, the number of those who truly gain is far greater. Young Indigenous men and women participants are given the opportunity to unearth, as we have seen, their own sense of self-worth and pride and get to complete a full 42.2-kilometre marathon while also completing a number of vocational training courses during the year of the program. Participants train mostly in their own communities during the program, and graduates often establish their own running and walking groups, as we have heard, called appropriately the Deadly Fun Runs. The Deadly Fun Runs encourage local communities to lead active lifestyles, help reduce the incidence of disease and also improve and strengthen community and social cohesion.
My community of Newcastle has its own graduate of the program and is home to two of the program's respected ambassadors. One, Novocastrian Nat Heath, is a 2012 program graduate. Nat applied for the program as an opportunity to improve his own education and his health following an earlier diagnosis of the paralysing Guillain‐Barre syndrome, and also to promote health and wellbeing in his community, doing so through the Newcastle parkrun series.
Nat travelled to New York to complete the 2012 New York Marathon, but the marathon was cancelled due to Hurricane Sandy. Despite the disappointment of not being able to run in the New York Marathon, Nat continued his training and in February 2013 finished the Tokyo Marathon.
Since 2013 he has continued his training, becoming the fastest ever IMP graduate, breaking the three-hour mark at the 2014 Sydney Marathon and, eight months later, winning his age category at the Port Macquarie Iron Man, qualifying him for the world championships.
Taking part in the program also provided Nat with greater self-belief and self-confidence to pursue his career. After completing the program he stepped out of his comfort zone to relocate from Newcastle to Sydney to work as a program manager for the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience.
Our city's program ambassadors, Dave 'Robbo' Robertson and Paralympian Kurt Fearnley, contribute in their own ways to assist program participants. Robbo mentors athletes, hosts functions and livestreams international events. Kurt meets with athletes in their final race preparation, in New York and Boston, where he also competes in the marathons and joins them in celebrating their achievements.
Both ambassadors have also been involved in the Newcastle Hunter Runners Ball, which raises much-needed funds for the program. I look forward to joining with the Newcastle running community at this year's ball, on Saturday night in Newcastle City Hall. Tickets were sold out weeks ago, so keen is my community to support this program. I commend the member for Fraser for bringing the Indigenous Marathon Project to the attention of the House, and I congratulate all organisers and program co-founder Robert de Castella for improving health and social welfare in Indigenous communities across Australia, including in my electorate of Newcastle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you need a ticket for that special event, which has been sold out, just go see the member for Newcastle! I am sure there is a way in! It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I, too, thank the member for Fraser, who himself is an avid runner and has no doubt had some tutoring from the great Rob de Castella.
When Rob first came to me with this idea—it was when I was Minister for Indigenous Health, in the previous government—I sort of wondered whether or not it was going to work, not because I doubted his dedication, but because the need to be able to mobilise young Australians who hitherto had not been engaged with running, and then have them compete in the New York Marathon, which was the goal, seemed a little far-stretched. But it turned out to be a magnificent objective—a really good goal that now has been achieved by so many.
I want to thank Rob. He has a very good awareness, as you would expect, about the importance of athletics, not only in terms of changing people's lives, in terms of their own self-motivation, but how it can actually change the lives of others around them. I can testify to this, because I know personally of a handful of runners who have run in the marathon project and are graduates of the program. In the first instance I am speaking of Charlie Maher. Charlie is an Aboriginal bloke from Alice Springs, who was, I think, in the first group of runners in the first year to do the project and actually compete in New York. Charlie is a young person, a family man, and a very good all-round sportsman—a great footballer—who turned out to be a very good runner. Not only does he do running, but because he was involved in this program, and because of his other roles, he is now a really strong mentor and leader.
This is true of others who have participated. I know of Caleb Hart and Reggie Smith, both from the local primary school—not the one that I went to, sadly, otherwise they would be down here at St Benedict's—where my partner, Elizabeth, is the deputy principal. They competed and they have done this very hard and arduous thing.
On the weekend of 18 July, the IMP ran a 10-kay anniversary run around the base of Uluru. This is to mark the 30th anniversary of the handing back of the rock. But regularly there is an event. An Uluru run is an annual event as part of the Deadly Fun Run series, which is part of this all-encompassing process that Rob de Castella has formulated about getting people running in the bush—and it works.
I know my time is limited, but before I conclude I would like to table—and I have sought the agreement of the government representative opposite—a list of all the runners over 2012, 2013 and 2014 who are successful graduates of the de Castella marathon project program.
Leave granted.
I want to mention two other runners in particular: Allirra Braun, whose family is very close to me, and Adrian Dodson-Shaw. Adrian is the son of Patrick Dodson, who is an eminent Australian in his own right, and Barb Shaw, who is a very eminent woman and a very strong leader in her own community. Adrian has now competed in the marathon project. You see him on social media, and he is always now talking about the importance of health and leadership and engaging in leadership projects in his own community. He ran the North Pole program quite recently and, unfortunately, today he is laid up with an injury, I am told. But we hope to get him back running very shortly—although Broome is a great environment and I do not think he will have any problem getting motivated.
But what we need to appreciate here is that these young people—all those who have participated—are now seen as role models in their communities and are encouraging others by their very performance to be involved in changing their lives to become healthier and live a more holistic life in terms of their own families and their own communities. This would not have happened without the foresight of Rob de Castella, who needs to be recognised and applauded for what he has done for these young people and for all of us by doing it.
I have to thank the member for Fraser for bringing this important motion to the House, and we should celebrate the member for Lingiari's role in encouraging Rob de Castella to start or continue this great project. I suppose it would have seemed a bit ambitious at first, but it has proven to be a really realistic thing to do and one that brings great support in the community. And so we have to thank Rob de Castella for that and, in my own community, Jo Weaver, who has for some time now organised a community event at the Granite Creek tavern; this year it will be on Saturday, 10 October. So, if anybody wants to get along to the Barossa Valley and get along to the Granite Creek pub, which is my local and puts on a good meal, you will get to hear from Rob de Castella. I will be there, my wife will be there and various other speakers will be there as well. The next morning, in the community out at Marananga, there is a fun run between Whistler Wines and Seppeltsfield Winery. So it is a great day and a great event which obviously helps to raise money for the runners to go to the New York marathon.
When I spoke to Jo, she was very keen for me to mention everybody but her, and that speaks to her modesty. But I think so many people who are organising these events do it because they think it is a really great thing to do, and not just to recognise Indigenous people in our own community—and I think that is important. I was reflecting that when I was at high school there was no Welcome to Country; there was no event like this in the local community, and I think we were poorer for it. In fact, I know we were poorer for it. So we really should celebrate people like Jo who get the rest of us involved, both raising money and running in the fun run on the Sunday morning.
She did want me to mention all of the South Australians who have been graduates and members. In 2011, we had Patrick Keain from Hove and Kiwa Schilling from Kanmantoo. In 2013 we had Luke McKenzie from Murray Bridge, who was also the 2013 NAIDOC Sportsman of the Year from South Australia. In 2014 we had Ruth Wallace from Adelaide. All of those have gone on to run the New York Marathon and graduate from the IMP program. In 2015, we had Daniel Lloyd from Murray Bridge, who is on the squad and currently training for the New York Marathon in November.
It is a terrific event, as I said before. Last year, I had the 'pleasure' of doing that 5.5-kilometre run. It was rather warm in the Barossa Valley and there are quite a lot of hills between Marananga and Seppeltsfield. If that is a fun run, I would hate to see one that was serious, because at every stop not only was there water but there were people who put you through a range of other fitness training—medicine balls, ropes to throw around, jumping up and down, doing squats and all the rest of it. It was 'fun', but it put some of us through our paces. After the first stop, my wife said, 'You're holding me back,' and sprinted away. She came in, I think, first amongst the fun run participants—if you exclude all the IMP graduates—and shared a great time. She is something of a runner. So this year I am going to try and do a bit better on the hills between Marananga and Seppeltsfield. There are great wineries. I would recommend them both to you if you are ever in the Barossa Valley, Deputy Speaker. But, most importantly, we will be there raising money and afterwards there is a fun day for all the community. These are great projects and they help to raise money for what are worthy projects. They do not just keep Indigenous people fit but they keep the rest of the community fit as well. They bring us together in a good way that is really about reaching a true and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous people in this country.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that travelling and living overseas has been a rite of passage for young Australians for many years and has raised awareness of and respect for foreign cultures;
(2) acknowledges that the New Colombo Plan (NCP) is an innovative scholarship scheme that supports and encourages Australian students to undertake study and internships in the Indo-Pacific region;
(3) recognises the success of the NCP's pilot year in 2014, in which 40 scholars and 1,300 mobility students were supported to live, study and undertake work placements in the four pilot locations of Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan and Singapore;
(4) notes that in 2015 the NCP has been substantially expanded to offer support to 68 scholars and 3,100 mobility students in more than 32 host locations across the region; and
(5) acknowledges the Government's ongoing commitment of $100 million over five years to the NCP.
I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, on this initiative, which is administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the Commonwealth government committing $100 million over five years to the program.
The concept is straightforward. The New Colombo Plan supports and encourages Australian students to undertake study and internships with many of our near neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. Traditionally, Australian students who have sought study opportunities overseas have tended to study in Europe and North America. The New Colombo Plan seeks to reverse that trend by making it more attractive to study in nations closer to home. It takes its name from the original Colombo Plan of the 1950s, in which the most promising students in the region were offered scholarships to study in Australia. They took with them not just degrees but a better understanding of Australia and links with our nation that served us well in the decades that followed.
But this straightforward concept belies a more complex purpose. At a base level, participating students will have the opportunity to gain knowledge towards their degrees or work experience in a different cultural environment. However, the value of the New Colombo Plan is even much greater than that, because this plan is as much about diplomacy as it is about vocational and higher education. The strength of a nation is not just measured by the size of its economy or the might of its military. Nor is diplomacy only the domain of politicians and diplomats. Strength lies in knowledge, knowledge informs diplomacy and diplomacy takes place everywhere: in boardrooms, at universities, at tourism sites—wherever we interact with people from other nations. The New Colombo Plan recognises that future generations of Australians, thought leaders across all disciplines, need to have a greater understanding of the cultural and linguistic sensibilities of our near neighbours. The world has changed in recent decades and Australia's place in it has changed.
At the turn of the 20th century the US and UK combined to account for around 75 per cent of the value of Australian international trade; however, by 2014 that figure had fallen to just 12 per cent. These days our top 10 Indo-Pacific trading partners account for 60 per cent of the value of Australian trade. This proportion is continuing to grow on the back of our new trade agreements. That is why the New Colombo Plan is so important to Australia's future. It is an investment in the knowledge that our future leaders will need in order to interact with their counterparts in nations in our region. It is an opportunity for them to gain an enhanced understanding of our near neighbours and forge networks and friendships that will last a lifetime and serve our country in the decades to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker, 2015 is a milestone year for the New Colombo Plan. Following a successful pilot in 2014, this year has been expanded from four to 35 locations—expanding from eastern Pacific Islands states to Pakistan in the west—with more than 4,600 students currently participating. It has recently been announced that a further 5,450 students will participate in the 2016 round, bringing the total number of participating students to more than 10,000 in the first three years of the program. Two weeks ago Minister Bishop was in Malaysia launching their involvement in the plan. This year 150 Australian students will travel to Malaysia to undertake part of their study as well as gain practical experience through internships, mentoring or work placements. It is pleasing that one of our nearest neighbours, Indonesia, is proving to be a particularly popular destination for students under the New Colombo Plan. This month the foreign minister announced that around 1,000 students studied in Indonesia last year, with a similar number expected for next year.
As I said earlier, the New Colombo Plan comes at a cost of $100 million over five years, but any cost is outweighed by the benefits of the deeper relationships that will be forged with nations in our region, which Australia will continue to profit from for many decades to come. It is a visionary and transformational program and I commend Minister Bishop for her foresight in making it a foreign policy priority of this government. I commend the motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
When Indonesia's newly elected President Joko Widodo unveiled Retno Marsudi as his choice for foreign affairs minister, the reaction of Australia was broadly positive. Apart from being our neighbour's first female minister for foreign affairs, Minister Marsudi had already spent a significant period of time in Australia serving as information secretary from 1990 to 1994. We hoped that this familiarity would see the continuation of generally warm relations with the Indonesian government that would allow us to reap the benefits of a foreign minister who would embrace working with Australia, another Indonesian whom we assumed would want to work with Australia as a starting point, rather than taking a more Realpolitik view of the relationship. We thought that there would be a natural continuation of pro-Australian politicians in Indonesia regardless of the departure of our country's great friend, President Yudhoyono. However, it soon emerged that Minister Marsudi's time in Australia was not as enjoyable as we would have liked. In 1991, her car was vandalised during protests. She is also old enough to remember the Indonesian flag, highly regarded by Indonesians, being burned on Australian streets. We are lucky that despite some of Minister Marsudi's experiences in Australia, she sees Australia as a friend and a partner. We did our best to dissuade her 20 years ago. Thankfully, times have changed in Australia and we would not expect similar things to occur today, but in the future we cannot just rely on luck to go our way in the international arena.
If we are to reap the benefits of the Asian century, Australians have to engage differently with our regional neighbours than we have in the past. As the epicentre of world economic growth is moving further east towards the Indo-Pacific, our region is growing at an unprecedented rate. We all know that the rise of China has been a huge benefit to Australia, but the rise of the Indo-Pacific expands much further than just one country. In 2050 our region will be home to 10 of the world's 25 biggest economies. In a few short decades Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia will become some of the biggest economies in the world. To make the most of this incredible opportunity we must be open to our region, engage with our region, communicate with our region and participate with our region.
Michael Wesley, a former director of the Lowy Institute, once said:
… no longer can Australians leave international affairs to the diplomats.
While government-to-government diplomacy will always have its place—and Michael Wesley is right—engagement in our region must be more than just diplomats socialising at cocktail events. One of the major aspects of this new engagement must be a focus on person-to-person contacts for a ramping up of exchange, and particularly educational exchange. We should send young Australians abroad to study to learn about our region, and welcome students from abroad to learn and study in Australia. Hundreds of leaders of our region have passed through Australia's university system. Not only do we need that to continue, but we must expand these opportunities. Offering scholarships to students in our region not only brings the best minds to Australia, it creates an environment for those personal relationships and common bonds to flourish, much to the national advantage. The Colombo Plan has enabled cultural and educational exchange in our region for decades, something that Australia and the region has benefited from immensely. Australians also need similar experiences. We should be encouraging all university students to go on exchange or do an internship abroad.
These kinds of experiences enable us to better understand other cultures, as well as to learn how other countries do business and practice politics. We should be getting as many young people as possible to experience life overseas and to see the countries in our region as more than just resorts and beaches. The Erasmus Program, in Europe, saw 270,000 students travel to another city in the Euro region in 2012-13 alone. If we are serious about engaging and integrating into our region, Australia needs a program of a similar size. The program should be open not just to international relations and development students, or foreign affairs students, but to our business, law, science and medicine students as well.
Australia already hosts a range of valuable youth dialogues such as the Australia-India Youth Dialogue and the Australia-China Youth Dialogue, and we should encourage and foster new regional connections through these forums. We should in particular encourage the formation of alumni networks from these youth dialogues and international study programs. Through these initiatives we can strengthen and broaden our connections in the region. Leveraging language, personal relationships and cultural capabilities will provide the basis for deep, long-term engagement in the region. Indeed, it is not just language alone that we need to develop proficiency in in our nation. Cultural proficiency of our region is equally important for developing these long-term personal connections and relationships that you rely on in order to advance Australia's interests in the Asian century. This level of engagement will return social, economic and political benefits to Australia and the broader region, and will enable Australia to take full advantage of the possibilities of the Asian century for many centuries to come.
It is with great pleasure I rise to speak today about the government's New Colombo Plan. For many years students have come from across the shores to study at our wonderful universities and institutions across our nation. Now, under the New Colombo Plan, $100 million over five years is being provided to help Australia's best and brightest undergraduates to live, study and gain work abroad in the Indo-Pacific region. It is a signature initiative of the Coalition government that offers a prestigious scholarship program. In addition to studying a wide range of disciplines, including language, culture, law, business, engineering and natural sciences, students build new relationships, develop valuable people-to-people links, and are exposed to many new experiences.
The foundation of the New Colombo Plan is intended to be transformational, deepening Australia's relationships in the region, both at the individual level and through expanding university, business and other stakeholder links. It will deepen Australia's people-to-people and institutional relationships with the region through the engagement of students, universities, businesses and other stakeholders' networks in the program.
The success of the pilot program for 2014, which supported 40 scholars, and more than 1,300 mobility students, internships or mentorships, has seen more universities and institutions participating, more undergraduates supported, and more countries being offered as part of the study experience. Since coming to government, the coalition government has provided for 4,500 Australian undergraduate students to study in and gain practical experience in more than 35 countries. By 2016, the New Colombo Plan will provide further funding to 38 universities to support 5,400 students undertaking semester-length, short-term study internships and work-based placements in the region.
Already, 186 Australian undergraduate students from the University of Western Sydney have been supported to live, study and work in our region. These are young, bright and dedicated students, who contribute to Australia's future engagement. This includes six students who have received prestigious, year-long New Colombo Plan scholarships. Timothy Mann, a 2014 scholarship recipient from the electorate of Macquarie, is currently studying biological and molecular biological sciences at the University of Tsukuba in Japan. Timothy will intern at the RIKEN Brain Science Institute.
The remaining 180 students have benefited from the New Colombo Plan mobility grants that support short- and longer term study, internships and practicums in the region. In 2015, 69 Australian undergraduate students will receive prestigious New Colombo Plan scholarships to live, study and work in the region for up to one year across 17 locations in the Indo-Pacific. The University of Western Sydney will send 10 students to India to undertake a four-week study program at the Institute of Foreign Policy Studies, University of Calcutta. This project supports the Indian government's Connect to India initiative. Twenty nursing students will travel to Thailand to study healthcare delivery in the remote districts. Fifteen social science, community development, planning and tourism students will travel to rural communities in Vietnam to examine issues relating to poverty and climate change. Among these 69 is Ms Charlee Law from the electorate of Macquarie, a student of the University of Western Sydney—or Western Sydney University, as it is now known—who is studying natural and physical science at the National University of Singapore. I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Law here at Parliament House in December 2014—a delightful young woman who was well deserving of her scholarship. Ms Law said to me at the time, 'I'm humbled by the opportunity to be part of the 2015 New Colombo Plan and would like to sincerely thank the Australian government for supporting such a wonderful initiative.' She went on to say, 'The New Colombo Plan scholarship will allow me to gain a rich perspective and firsthand experience of the achievements Singapore has had in this area.' Also at the event at the University of Western Sydney was Lakshmi Logathassan, who is to study political science and law at the National University of Singapore.
The New Colombo Plan offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help equip students with the skills and experience needed to engage the dynamic Indo-Pacific region. I thank all universities and institutions that participate in this wonderful program, particularly—from the electorate of Macquarie—Professor Barney Glover from Western Sydney University. I also specifically acknowledge Foreign Minister Bishop for having the fortitude and the courage to see this program through to fruition, built on her own experience. I also acknowledge her strong work in building and strengthening our relationship with Indonesia. She is an excellent ambassador for this nation of Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Marriage equality is not a fringe issue; it is something that affects us all—our parents, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and work colleagues. We are all entitled to equal protection of the law, and all people should be treated equally, regardless of who we are or who we love. This bill would help achieve that. It seeks to put an end to existing discriminatory law and as such should pass through the parliament with the strong support of all who are determined to end discrimination in all its forms. Regretfully we know that that will not be the case. The fact that there is more than one bill on marriage equality before the House today points to the determination of some in this parliament to ensure that this matter is not resolved any time soon. This should not be a political argument. It is an issue of human rights, social justice and equality before the law. But our Prime Minister has worked hard to ensure that it is political, forever resetting targets to be met in order for a vote on marriage equality to occur in this parliament.
More than 12 months ago the member for Sydney wrote to all coalition members inviting them to co-sponsor a bill for marriage equality. Just one of the 99 members opposite was needed for this matter to progress, but none came forward. With no coalition co-sponsor, the only choice the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader had to progress this important issue of equality was to table the bill before us today.
In speaking to this bill in parliament, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he would allow his party a free vote on this issue. Rather than allow a free vote, the Prime Minister focused instead on unfairly attacking Labor for an alleged lack of parliamentary consultation. He said:
If our parliament were to make a big decision on a matter such as this, it ought to be owned by the parliament and not by any particular party.
In response, common-minded, equality-focused members from all parties in this place united to bring forward a bill, as introduced by the member for Leichhardt today, to be, as the Prime Minister put it, 'owned' by this parliament. The Prime Minister set the terms and the parliament responded.
Then, of course, we saw the hullabaloo of last week, when the Prime Minister was presented with what he had asked for, a bill owned by the parliament, not by a party. That is when the Prime Minister decided to switch back to character once more with various acts of sabotage up his sleeve. First was the argument there was no time to debate this matter. Second, as described by the Leader of the House, was the issue of the alleged branch stacking by bringing the National Party into the Liberal Party room to have this debate. Third, after six hours of closed-door debates with the result of no free vote being allowed for the coalition, the Prime Minister said that, if the Liberals were to change their stance, 'people who voted for us were going to feel dudded'. Well, Prime Minister, I am not sure how many times one can be dudded, but I would suggest that many people who voted for you, and those who did not, are already feeling well and truly dudded by your broken promises about so many issues before this parliament.
As a result of being presented with a personally unpalatable option, the Prime Minister returned to character and moved a new act of sabotage, calling for a referendum or a plebiscite, against his own words from a few months ago, against a High Court ruling, and against the determination of the Attorney-General and many others. Mark Kenny put the position aptly in the Fairfax press:
This is the game now: push for a public vote, dress it up as the virtuous pursuit of a truly democratic outcome, and thus delay and then destroy the push through a tsunami of fear-based advertising (some of it government funded if there is a public ballot) claiming the rights of children are being compromised.
It is clear the only plan the Prime Minister has is to do whatever it takes to prevent same-sex marriage legislation being debated by this parliament.
I have spent much of my life fighting discrimination in all its versions, and this is the prism through which I view marriage equality. Yet as we watch the Prime Minister lurch from one crisis to another, pushing for plebiscites one minute and referenda another, it is now apparent he will do anything to ensure this parliament does not get to vote. The Prime Minister's behaviour makes clear that there is only one way for this to occur. You can have marriage equality or you can have Tony Abbott—you cannot have both. To get marriage equality you will have to make a choice at the next election. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 15:59
Today I rise to speak about the Commonwealth Bank's StartSmart Program. The StartSmart Program is delivered to students across primary, secondary and vocational education settings and aims to provide students with financial education. Students are taught how to manage their money and are given the necessary knowledge and skills to make wise financial decisions. StartSmart is the largest face-to-face financial literacy program of its kind in the world, which was delivered to more than 295,000 students last year alone. There are five sessions in the program, which is split into five areas: SmartEarning, SmartSaving, SmartInvesting, SmartSpending and SmartEnterprise.
Last Friday I was invited by principal Josie Crisara of Aitken College in my electorate to observe this SmartSpending lesson delivered to a year 9 class. The lesson was facilitated by Mr Jamie Robinson from the Commonwealth Bank. During the lesson I watched Jamie discuss with students the importance of distinguishing between needs and wants. He explained the concepts of budgeting and saving, and he directed the class to always engage in comparative shopping. StartSmart provides tools that could be used to manage spending, such as withdrawing only as much money as you have budgeted to spend in any particular day or week, waiting 24 hours before making a purchase, and using a smart phone app to track spending. Principal Josie Crisara told me that the program has been well received by students and parents. Upon completing the program, students said they felt better informed and had greater confidence in how to manage their finances. (Time expired)
Today the people of the Darwin Skills Development Scheme will be making final preparations to open their new premises tomorrow. I was delighted to receive an invitation to the opening, but I had to send my apologies because I am here in freezing downtown Canberra.
Darwin Skills Development Scheme provide a valuable service to our community. Their disability employment service offers genuinely engaging, meaningful roles for people with challenges in their lives. This is not a service to railroad people into jobs for the sake of meeting quotas. In looking at Darwin Skills Development Scheme, the one thing that comes out over and over again is the sense of individual dignity they treat their clients with. If you click through their website, as a disabled job seeker would, there are questions about your career, your aspirations, your skills and your qualifications. I am really proud to see Darwin Skills Development Scheme empowering people and giving them a sense of self worth and identity. There are many people of all kinds in Darwin and Palmerston who devote so much of their energy to helping others. I am grateful to them, and I wish them all the very best for their opening tomorrow.
On Friday I attended St Mary's Catholic school at Gateshead—it is a year 7 to 10 school—for the launch of National Science Week. The thing that is so overwhelming about it is that the main part of the festival is concentrating on STEM and what students at St Mary's have achieved in that area. The CSIRO were present, as were Rotary, the University of Newcastle and, of course, the school's teachers and students.
St Mary's is a pretty special school. There is a science and engineering challenge that has been conducted for many years and St Mary's is one of the outstanding performers in that competition. They have a real commitment to science and technology, just as they have a real commitment to STEM. It was interesting seeing how students had programmed certain activities, and how these programs work. In addition to that, they were working from apps on their phones that they had purchased. The day before they had been involved in a battery technologically powered bicycle race where one of the students recorded the fastest lap. I congratulate St Mary's High School.
It is my pleasure to inform the House of the achievement of Austin Kozak, a student from Lakes Grammar School in my electorate, who recently won the Chinese bridge speaking competition. The Chinese bridge competition is an international competition for secondary school students, and is organised by the Confucius Institute Headquarters and Hanban in China. It provides a platform for young foreign students to showcase their Chinese proficiency. More than 300,000 students globally participated in this competition. It is a chance to make new friends, explore the Chinese language and culture and of course new open new doors for the future.
Austin, who has only been studying Chinese for a relatively short time, presented a three-minute speech in Mandarin, entitled 'My Chinese dream'. He also undertook a performance showing his passion for the Chinese culture. Austin will now represent Australia at an international level in Yunnan, China, in November. The winners will be given an opportunity to further their studies in China or receive a scholarship to learn Chinese as a second language. Competitions such as this further the good relationships and understandings between China and Australia. Austin's success is a great example of what can be achieved by such a focused student. I would like to wish Austin every success at the international competition in Yunnan in China later this year, and I commend his achievement to the House.
It was fantastic to attend the Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire, or BEATS, on Saturday night. Our local small businesses are the heart of our local economy and our communities, and the BEATS was a magnificent celebration of all they have to offer. Around 200 people gathered at the Murwillumbah Civic and Cultural Centre for the sold-out gala night, which saw finalists across 18 categories go head to head for the respective titles.
Congratulations to all the winners and the nominees, especially to the winner of the award for best community or social service non-profit organisation, which was Tweed Palliative Support, who also won the award for best business overall. Thanks also to the many sponsors and for the general community support for this great event. I would like to acknowledge the organisers, Toni Zuschke and Natascha Wernick, both of whom did an outstanding job again in showcasing the local business community and arranging a truly magnificent evening.
It is also important to note that all of the produce and businesses sourced for this event are from the Tweed Shire. Special mention must also go to Jonathan, Mel and all the team from Ju Ju's restaurant, who provided the outstanding three-course meal for the event. Also, the performers were just fantastic, especially local superstar 17-year-old Nina Baumer, who recently appeared on the TV show The Voice. She was remarkable. Congratulations to all of the businesses that were nominated and acknowledged for their excellence in a range of fields at the BEATS. It was a great occasion to showcase the great diversity of businesses that we have right throughout the Tweed Shire and indeed right throughout the North Coast of New South Wales.
I rise to welcome the government's decision to implement a continuous build of surface warships in Australia but especially the construction of the Future Frigates in South Australia. I have been lobbying very hard for defence work for my state, as have all South Australian members and senators, so I particularly welcome the bringing forward of the Future Frigate program to 2020, which is three years earlier than was scheduled under Labor. We are also going to be bringing forward the construction of the offshore patrol vessels by two years, with a continuous onshore build, commencing in 2018.
Australia has experience in building the Huon class minehunters, the Anzac class frigates and, more recently, the Air Warfare Destroyers, but what we have had is a boom and bust and not a continuous build. Now having decades of work in a continuous build is a very exciting opportunity for naval shipbuilding and it is an exciting opportunity for South Australia. This investment will be good for economic growth and is a strong vote of confidence in South Australia's shipbuilding capability. In the short term, these two measures will sustain around 1,000 jobs that would have otherwise been lost. Once both programs ramp up, they will guarantee around 2½ thousand Australian shipbuilding jobs for decades. This strategy gives decades of certainty to our shipbuilding workforce and to industry and is very good news for my state. With Navy capability being the centrepiece of the upcoming defence white paper, the outlook is good for South Australia.
On 30 March this year, Australians all over the country sat down to watch the Socceroos play a friendly football match on television. It would have caught many Australians by surprise, however, when they saw the official title of our opponents, 'FYR Macedonia'. The initials stand for 'Former Yugoslav Republic', a reference to the nation's previous status as a part of the former Yugoslavia. Other countries that made up the former Yugoslavia—Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia—have all adopted names without reference to Yugoslavia. Macedonians, however, have not been able to drop the reference to Yugoslavia in their nation's official name. Their country's name has been a sore spot for Macedonian Australians since their country's official independence almost 2½ decades ago. Many countries, including the US, the UK and Canada, have moved on and now use Macedonians' preferred name in their bilateral exchanges with the nation.
Earlier this year, the member for Perth spoke in this place and said:
Common sense tells us that we should not continue to burden a country with a name that it hates.
One of the reasons our multiculturalism works is that modern Australia is a country of migrants who left disputes and cultural differences of the past in the countries that they came from. It makes no sense to refer to people by titles that they hate, and the Macedonian-Australian community has worked tirelessly to correct that in this country.
Australia is a place where people come to escape conflict, and we have cultivated a harmonious society by showing respect, empathy and tolerance towards others in our community. We should extend the same respect to Macedonians.
I have been calling for our legal counteroffensive to stop the extreme green groups out there from engaging in 'lawfare,' or legal warfare, against job-creating projects. I issued the call due to continual actions taken against Adani's Carmichael coalmine project in Central Queensland, which workers desperate for jobs and businesses in dire need of economic stimulus in my electorate of Dawson have been eagerly awaiting. I thank the honourable Attorney-General for agreeing that action does need to be taken. I spoke to the Attorney-General shortly after the Carmichael mine approval was delayed in the courts. I said it was unacceptable that groups that had nothing to do with this project were able to hold up and try to kill off jobs by waging warfare through the legal system. I note that, in an interview on Sunday, the Attorney-General said that he wanted to stop such vigilante litigation. He stated:
… the Adani case has shown why it's very important that the courts not be used as a forum for vigilante litigation by people whose aim is to game the system, who have no legitimate interest other than to prosecute a political vendetta against development and bring massive developments … to a standstill.
Of course, people who are directly affected by a project should have the ability to take court action, but groups like the Mackay Conservation Group and the Environmental Defenders Office, who are located hundreds of miles away from the Carmichael mine, should not be able to mount disruptive and job-destroying court action against these projects.
It is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Australia's great public servants and public diplomacy professionals, my friend and mentor the late Gregson Edwards, who recently passed away just shy of his 70th birthday. Gregson began his career in 1963 as a bush journalist. He had a 30-year career crafting Australia's image abroad, representing Australia in missions around the world, including in The Hague, Beijing and Tokyo, as director of information for the new Australian Federal Police, and, ultimately, as director of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's overseas cultural relations program.
It was during his time when he was in Beijing, after the atrocities in Tiananmen Square, that Gregson smuggled footage of the massacre across the border to Hong Kong. He did this because he knew what was right. He did this without any concern for himself. His only concern was justice for those lives lost in Tiananmen Square.
Gregson lived a full life. He was always thinking of others and always thinking of the greater good. Australia is incredibly grateful for his enormous contribution, Canberra is incredibly grateful for his contribution and I am incredibly grateful for his contribution. I send my deepest condolences to his family; his wife, Maria; his sons, Bredun and McLean; his daughter-in-law, Elizabeth; and grandchildren Molly, Bea and Aston. Vale Gregson Edwards.
Today I rise to pass a bouquet to a wonderful local community organisation. They got me out of a spot of bother on Friday night. I was in my electorate doing various things when I managed to get something in my eye that actually cut my cornea. About 10 o'clock at night, after doing community events, I had little choice, as my GP was closed, but to go to Nepean Hospital. We are very lucky in the Nepean-Blue Mountains area that we have an MoU between the Nepean-Blue Mountains Local Health District and the Nepean-Blue Mountains Primary Health Network. The Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network run a fabulous after-hours GP clinic. I turned up there quite late on Friday night and had remarkable service from the doctor on duty. I was talking with Lizz Reay, who is the CEO of the PHN today, and thanking her for this wonderful service. She said, 'We aim to keep people well, well attended to and out of hospital.' This is a wonderful facility right outside the emergency doors of Nepean Hospital. I say to local people that you can go to emergency, but there are doctors on duty and on call at the after-hours GP clinic. It is a wonderful service. As our region grows and more and more people have more reasons to see the hospital in different ways, please see the PHN, please go to the after-hours clinic, because you are guaranteed to get good service.
In Bendigo, like many areas, we are trying to get on top of a problem which is a ticking time bomb. We, like many areas, have a number of ageing parents who are still caring for profoundly disabled adult children. They are people quite often in their 70s and 80s still caring for their children who are in their 40s and 50s. Knowing that this is a problem and hearing the calls of local parents, a group of us have got together to form a working group to map the unmet demand in our community and to work together to find solutions. I would like to acknowledge the success of our first meeting in bringing together not just the parents but also the not-for-profits in this space. We also had in the room real estate agents keen to work with us to provide private alternatives to this issue. We had our local housing group—Haven; Home, Safe—in the room. They hosted the meeting together with Amicus, Radius and a number of other not-for-profit groups that support people with a disability. We are working together as a community to help meet the unmet demand when it comes to disability housing. In the future we will be having more meetings in the hope that we are finding real solutions, practical solutions, for people in this situation.
) ( ): Today I rise to talk about aircraft noise in Western Australia. Airservices Australia has come in for criticism in the past seven years for the way they have handled Perth flight path communications, and today I must rise to criticise them again for an astonishing decision to cancel the publicly announced trial in Perth of noise improvements before it has even begun. On 6 March this year Airservices announced:
A further noise improvement opportunity to be trialled in 2015 at Perth will provide night-time noise respite to residents living in south-west Perth along the Swan river. The trial will see the departure flight path amended so aircraft will fly further to the south towards the Jandakot area until they reach 8,000 feet before turning to the north.
I have been lobbying for improvements to Perth Airport noise since 2008, including noise-sharing arrangements such as these. This announcement was so well received by the people of my electorate that at a community meeting in South Perth 200 people stood and applauded. But incredibly on Friday, 7 August 2015, Airservices put out a press release entitled 'No change to night-time flights at Perth Airport', cancelling the trial before it had even begun, without consulting the community or any of its members of parliament. I have met with Airservices Australia since to convey the anger of the people of Swan for this breach of faith, and I want to assure the people of Swan, Tangney, Hasluck and Pearce that I will fight, along with my fellow MPs, to ensure the trial of the night-time respite is reinstated.
On Thursday, 6 August I attended Belmont Public School for their art show. This is the second art show that the school has conducted; the first was in 2013. I was overwhelmed with the quality of the art that was on display. This was to celebrate Education Week in New South Wales. What the students at Belmont Public School displayed was second to none. At the end of the function there was an auction of the artwork, and I purchased a mosaic that was prepared by class 1/2W and Ms Williams.
An honourable member: High roller!
Yes, I am a high roller. I went in there and I bid, and I was successful. That artwork is phenomenal, and it will be displayed in my office. It depicts Lake Macquarie and the sky, and it shows just what talented students there are at Belmont Public School, along with all the other work that was on display there. Full credit to everyone that was involved in this. It was a wonderful way to celebrate Education Week.
I rise to speak on a fantastic project in my electorate, and that is the Upwey-Tecoma Community Recreational and Sporting Hub. Not long ago I turned up with 300 local residents to show our support for this project and also to give a bit of a message to the council that we want all their support too. At the last election, we committed $500,000, and I would like to thank the chairman, Andrew Peterson; the steering committee vice-chairman, Andrew Fullagar; and the secretary, Alan Stevenson. I thank them for their fantastic work.
There are 25 groups who will benefit: Upwey High School; Upwey Tecoma Football and Netball Club; Upwey Tecoma Cricket Club; Upwey-Tecoma Bowls Club; Upwey Tecoma Junior Football Club; Upwey Township Group; Ranges Chess Club; Friends of Glenfern Valley Bushlands; Sherbrooke Basketball Association; Mountain Tigers Basketball Club; Upwey-Tecoma Tennis Club; KidsFest; Tecoma Village Action Group; Upwey-Tecoma Auskick; Belgrave Probus Club; Upwey and District Garden Club; Sherbrooke U3A; Sherbrooke Foothills Historical Society; Il Shim Tae Kwon Do; Upwey Tae Kwon Do and Self Defence; Upwey South Tennis Club; Upwey South Netball Club; Upwey Senior Citizens Club; and Upwey Primary School. I do not think there is a club in Upwey or Tecoma I have left off. Again, congratulations.
I rise today to acknowledge the debilitating and devastating impact of Lyme disease, which I only recently found out about through one of my community forums, where I met Marie Huttley-Jackson. She told me about her eight-year-old daughter, Genevieve. Genevieve suffers from Lyme disease and has been living with it for three years, after she was bitten by a tick in Sydney when she was five. Immediately after she was bitten, Genevieve had a bullseye rash, flu-like symptoms and trouble walking. Marie, Genevieve's mother, says her daughter's symptoms vary and some days are better than others. On a bad day, Genevieve cannot get out of bed. She suffers from foot and ankle pain, requiring a wheelchair or crutches. On other days, she may suffer from random blindness, a loss of colour vision, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, insomnia, light sensitivity, breathing problems and numbness all over her body. Since Genevieve was bitten by a tick in 2012, she and her mother have seen about 30 doctors. Marie says it took 20 months and 23 health professionals to get a diagnosis, and by that time her body was riddled with multiple bacteria.
I call for more research so that we can develop a national plan to collect statistics and develop treatments for people living with Lyme disease, and I also encourage us all to provide support and acknowledge the work of the Lyme Disease Association of Australia. They provide invaluable support to families, parents and children suffering from Lyme disease. As Marie said:
The thing that made my life better was finding the Lyme Disease Association of Australia. They have provided both practical and emotional support, information …
Not only is Mallee the biggest electorate in Victoria; it is the most fun. Over the weekend I had to go to the Australian vanilla slice competition and, as their local representative, had to partake in much vanilla slice. I then had to go to the Almond Blossom Festival in Robinvale. Whilst I was there, a person by the name of Leigh Donovan came and said something to me which I think is a very good suggestion. He talked about how he hopped in a tinnie and went 600 kilometres down the mighty Murray River. As he went down in the tinnie, he was shocked at the amount of rubbish that has been left behind. I saw this when I visited a Green Army project where they were cleaning up things on the Murray River, and there was a couch; someone had left a couch behind. I just want to say that this is deplorable. We have such great natural resources in Australia. We should look after them and we should value them. So today I have written a letter to the Standing Committee on the Environment, which I am a member of. I have also written to the Minister for the Environment saying that there is value in another re-education campaign. We value our regional assets and our beautiful environment, but we want to make sure that all Australians can go there and enjoy it. But take your rubbish home. Do not leave a couch behind. Do not leave an old mattress behind. Bury your toilet paper—take a shovel. Get the whole nature experience! We want to make sure that our environmental assets are looked after. I hope that the environment minister will take up the suggestion of an education campaign.
Yesterday, many people—particularly in the states of Victoria and WA—would have turned on their TVs to watch the telecast of football. AFL is big in our states. But yesterday, if you turned on just after 12 o'clock, you would have seen for the first time ever the first women's football team to be telecast here in Australia. It was an historic day for women's footy and a proud day for many of us who have been associated with women's footy, whether as girls, junior girls, Auskick or the local women's football team.
In my own electorate of Bendigo we have the Bendigo Thunder. After a tough season last season, this year they have rallied and the girls have improved. On the weekend they had a cracking win over a team that travelled from Melbourne. They won by about 50 points. In our area, this is how women's footy is providing women with the opportunity to compete in the sport who were denied that opportunity a few years ago.
It was also announced yesterday that the AFL plans to launch a premier league for women's footy—a professional league—in 2017. So, in the coming years women will be on the same stage as men. However, we have a lot of work to do as a community and a long way to go to ensure that women in sport have professional pay—whether that be for football or for netball.
I am thrilled to have the opportunity to speak on an extremely important issue in my electorate. It is time that the easterly-direction ramps to the M5 at Riverwood were opened.
At the moment you can enter the M5 at Riverwood travelling in a westerly direction, or exit if you are coming from a westerly direction. You cannot enter if you are travelling in an easterly direction and you cannot exit if you are coming from the easterly direction, despite the fact that the space is there for those ramps to be opened. They must be opened. This would be a huge benefit for our local community—for the residents of Lugarno, Peakhurst, Riverwood, Punchbowl and many other places in my electorate of Banks.
There are three steps that need to happen to get these ramps open. Firstly, the state government needs to do a study to determine the precise manner in which this would happen—and I encourage the state government to do that. I am very hopeful that soon they will announce that this will in fact occur. Secondly, we need to identify the best way of opening those ramps and the process for doing it. And, thirdly, we need the funding to do it. I am very determined to secure federal government funding to assist in this very important project.
It is a very big deal in my electorate. We must open the M5 ramps in an easterly direction at Riverwood.
Last weekend I attended two remembrance ceremonies for Vietnam veterans. The member for Dobell attended one of those with me—yesterday, when we attended the ceremony at the Keith Payne Hostel in Noraville, within her electorate. It was a very beautiful ceremony in a fantastic setting.
There is a memorial garden at the Keith Payne Hostel. We sat in the garden and listened to the contributions by the various people there and I was able to think about the enormous contribution made by our 'nashos'—in many cases—who stood up and fought for Australia in Vietnam.
On Saturday I attended the annual ceremony at Newcastle City Hall. It was to be held in the park, but unfortunately it was raining. That is also a very special ceremony. Each year one of the 19 young men who was killed in Vietnam's is profiled. For that person, along with every other person who lost their life there, a flag is placed in their memory. It is a very moving ceremony and it is a time when we remember the contribution of Australian soldiers in Vietnam.
I would like acknowledge a few people today: Adam Gordon, Erica Fletcher, and the whole team who put on the Clarence Valley Business Excellence Awards, on Saturday night at the Yamba Golf & Country Club. I would just like to run through some of the winners. The Clarence Valley Business of the Year winner was Fresh Dental Care—Carol Pachos, Lara Tracey and Sharon Marinucci—sponsored by The Daily Examiner. Trainee or Apprentice of the Year was won by Ruth Finlay, who works for Addictive Hair and Beauty and was sponsored by State Training Services. The Better Access Award went to SPAR Maclean. I congratulate Bob and Judith Little and the staff, who were sponsored by Key Employment. Work Health and Safety Award was won by Harwood Marine. I congratulate Leeanne Bawl, Peter Clarke and Shane White, who last year won the Apprentice of the Year Award. They were sponsored by WorkCover New South Wales. Retail Business—Up to Five Employees Award was won by Bridgestone Select. I congratulate Scott Brereton and Leah Beaumont, who were sponsored by ETC. Retail Business—Six or More Employees was won by SPAR Maclean. Once again I congratulate Bob and Judith Little, and their team. It is the longest continually running grocery store in Australia. It has been running since 1883. They were sponsored by ETC. The Professional Services—Up to Five Employees Award when to Summerland Credit Union, which was sponsored by Tursa. Professional Services—Six or More Employees Award went to Fresh Dental Care, sponsored by Tursa. The Tourism, Accommodation, Events and Entertainment Award was won by Grafton 2 Yamba Houseboat Hire. I congratulate the owners, Vicki and Andrew Edmonds, who were sponsored by Chess Employment. The Trade, Industry and Manufacturing Award went to Benny's Grafton Smash Repairs and owner Nathan Ben. The New Business 1st Year Award went to CSR Gyprock Trade and Timber Supplies. I congratulate Scott, Tobin and Jason. The New Business 2nd Year Award went to Irons & Craig. The Health, Fitness and Wellbeing Award went to Optimum Health Solutions. The People's Choice Favourite Business Award went to Farmer Lou's. (Time expired)
I would like to take this opportunity to wish Canberra's subcontinental community a happy Pakistan Independence Day, for last Friday, and Canberra's Indian community a happy Indian Independence Day, which was on Saturday. Our subcontinental community here is incredibly vibrant and it is growing. There are particular suburbs where the subcontinental community just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I am very fortunate to be an active part of their community, and very involved in community activities. There is a range of community groups, both in the Pakistani and Indian communities, as well as a range of areas where they can worship and congregate. In my electorate alone there are the Hindu and Sikh temples. We are also very fortunate to have the Canberra Islamic Centre there, which last year was unfortunately the victim of a number of incidences of ridiculously malicious violence. We also have the Canberra Islamic School in the electorate.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate particularly the Indian community for all the great work they have done. They had the very first curry festival here in winter, which was a huge hit. It will be bigger and better next year. Also, the local Australian Indian business community recently hosted the Leader of the Opposition at a major event. They talked about the bilateral relationship. Finally, I want to welcome to Canberra and thank the new Indian high commissioner and his wife.
The Financial Claims Scheme played a vital role in stabilising investor and consumer confidence during the GFC, and Basel recommendations internationally now are that banks must prepare for the future and that fiscal arrangements must be in place for developing economies for a future potential crash. That means that we need to look at options where there is at least some form of fiscal return from banks in return for the protection offered by the Financial Claims Scheme. Let's be honest: it is the large banks that present the greatest risks, so in many cases we need to re-look at the hated deposit tax that was proposed by the Labor Party. Certainly, there is very little love on this side of the chamber for it, but we know we must be able to prepare for the future.
One possibility put together by the consumer-run banks is to have a threshold of, say, $40 billion in these deposit-taking institutions before they pay anything, and if anything is paid it is on the total liabilities—all of the funds that these funds access for their banking purposes and not just the deposits. This has to be de-linked from deposits and not be a tax on savings. If we do that the base for this tax increases from $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion. It also means you can have a far lower tax—something like one basis point. This would mean that the really small building societies that do not present a major risk of systemic collapse would be exempt, but those around the size of the Bank of Queensland and ME Bank and others might start to pay a very small amount. I encourage this government to look at this option, which would meet our requirements under Basel, protect the small banks, which we respect so much, and would certainly be affordable by the larger banks.
This government's attacks on Medicare are starting to be felt in our community, particularly in relation to the Medicare rebate being frozen until 2017. I would just like to read out a letter that a constituent in my electorate has received in relation to her daughter accessing psychology and psychological services in Bendigo. The letter states:
Our current rate for consultations is based on the Medicare Rebate amount, however, this rate has been frozen by the government until 2017. This means that … Consulting's income remains the same, while the cost of running a business increases.
This is why we, regretfully, have increased our consultation fee to $165
The letter goes on to explain that you will have to have that money to pay up-front before you are able to access their services. If you qualify for the Medicare rebate, you will then be refunded after the consultation and still be out of pocket $40.
This is what is happening in our community as a result of this government's attacks on Medicare. There are not too many young people who are seeking help that have $165 in their bank account to access vital services. These are young people who are the most vulnerable in our community. I call on the government to rethink this policy because it is hurting kids in our region—kids who are seeking help.
It was a great honour to pay respect to our servicemen and servicewomen on the Central Coast yesterday on the 70th anniversary of VP Day. On that day, 70 years ago, Japan surrendered unconditionally and Australian cities and towns erupted in celebration. Almost a million Australians served in the Second World War; around 40,000 gave their lives in the great struggle against tyranny. Yesterday, I stood alongside locals whose parents and grandparents were part of an effort that won the war that defined their time.
At Ettalong, the Central Coast Sub Branch of the Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association of Australia did an excellent job of bringing our community together. There were around 100 people in attendance who heard from guest speaker Walter Pearson. Walter spoke very movingly. He gave a wonderful history of the veterans' experience and an incredible insight into the reception given to newly returned soldiers. May I thank Bob Purcell, the president of the sub-branch, and the secretary, Robyn Creswell, for the opportunity to be there and to pay my respects by the memorial at Ettalong Beach.
This is an important moment as part of our Anzac centenary year commemorations, which, I am pleased to say, also delivers back to our community. One way we do this is through the Building Excellence in Support and Training grants. I am pleased to advise that recently this Vietnam veterans branch in Ettalong received a $20,000 grant to assist the work they do, and the Woy Woy Ettalong-Hardy's Bay RSL Sub Branch has also received a grant of $11,000.
I commend to the House their service to our community.
On Sunday, 9 August I attended Mannering Park's commemoration of the centenary of the Battle of Lone Pine. The service was conducted by Doyalson RSL in conjunction with the Mannering Park community. Mannering Park is a very special place. It has won Tidy Town awards and has a really strong sense of community. On this day, the President of the Mannering Park 355 Hall Committee, Trevor Wrightson, talked about the history of the propagation of pine cones from the original Lone Pine at Gallipoli, and the Reverend Bruce Edgell, a retired Uniting Church minister, gave a very moving address on Gallipoli and on Australia's involvement at Gallipoli. It was a day that brought the community together, and the president of Doyalson RSL also spoke. There was a real reckoning and remembrance of the significance of war memorials in Australia, and I was pleased to lay a wreath with my colleague Yasmin Catley and Councillor Doug Vincent, who were also present at this commemoration of the centenary of the Battle of Lone Pine.
VP70 commemorations went off with a bang in Townsville as well. My congratulations to the Townsville City Council and all their partners who did such a fantastic job in bringing this fantastic function to a peak. It has been a busy year in Townsville for commemorations, but this one, VP70, was fresh but respectful, and it was fun but it was reverent, and I think that the people of Townsville City Council have a lot to do with the way that it came off. Our mayor, Jenny Hill, led the commemorations and celebrations. Her words were a perfect blend of history, the present day and forward thinking. We hosted the Governor of Queensland, Paul de Jersey AC, and his wife, Kaye. Brigadier Roger Noble from 3rd Brigade spoke absolutely brilliantly about the military history. Tokyo based Lieutenant General John Dolan, Commander, US Forces Japan, and Commander, 5th Air Force, was in attendance, and we saw a magnificent fly-past from a B-52 bomber and a C-17 that nearly touched our heads. It was fantastic.
I was proud to convey the message from the Prime Minister, and his words, as per usual, were absolutely spot on. But it was all about the veterans who were there and the men and women who had served and held our city so well during that time. We thank you for your service. We thank you for your sacrifice. We are a greater country because of what you gave to us.
Earlier this year, Canberrans were shocked to the core at the death of Tara Costigan through what is suggested was family violence. In response to that, the outpouring of grief and shock but also of support to the family that she left behind—a one-week-old baby girl, as well her other young children—from Canberrans was extraordinary. Thousands and thousands of dollars were donated to look after the children, and thousands and thousands of Canberrans took part in a walk around the lake to show support for the family but, most importantly, to basically say that Canberrans had zero tolerance for family violence.
As part of those community efforts, and out of outrage that this could happen in our community, the uncle of Tara Costigan, Michael Costigan, established the Tara Costigan Foundation, and I caught up with him over the break to get an update on where it was at. Again, it has had extraordinary support. The beauty of this foundation is that it is going to fund Tara's Angels, who will provide support for those who have been the victims of family violence. It is designed to empower them to overcome the trauma of that family violence so that they can go on and contribute to our community in a meaningful and constructive way.
This morning, union protesters rallied outside my office against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I want to set the record straight on what the agreement means to the people of Flynn. The agreement will not reduce immigration safeguards. It will not permit overseas workers to work in Australia without going through the necessary checks. Australia is not bound to agree to requests from Chinese companies for concessions to the standard visa requirements. This FTA is similar to previous labour agreement programs put in place by the former Labor government. This FTA also includes labour mobility outcomes consistent with Australia's current immigration policy. We are not changing the skill levels required of Chinese visa holders to work in Australia. We are streamlining and improving access to skills assessment. We are doing this to provide an improved trade relationship between Australia and China; to encourage investment in Australia; and to reduce tariffs on industries including tourism, agriculture and the energy and resource sector. I am confident that these outcomes will benefit my constituents. And we need to support further investment in our industries.
My electorate and the town of Bendigo in recent weeks have been hit by two shocking incidents. In one, a woman lost her life—she was murdered in her own home in the early hours of the morning, which shocked our community. Many of us woke to that news. And all of us were saddened by it but also shocked—shocked that this incident of family violence could occur in our neighbourhood. The other incident was a few weeks afterwards when a young woman went missing and has since been found. In both of those situations the perpetrators involved have been charged and we are waiting for those matters to be heard by the court.
Today I want to acknowledge the hard work by first the Bendigo SES and the volunteers who worked tirelessly through the night to help try and find the young woman who had gone missing, and also by the local police force who, in very difficult circumstances, rose above and beyond. It is not easy in these situations to respond, but time and time again our local police force do so. They do so with compassion and respect, and today, on behalf of everybody in Bendigo, I want to thank them for their hard work. We know that we are safe and well served by our Bendigo police force, and we will continue to support them in their efforts in keeping us safe as a community.
Thank you, Member for Bendigo. Well said.
Today I would like to reiterate something that I have brought to the House's attention on a couple of occasions lately. Particularly difficult economic times are happening in the north of my state of South Australia—in my electorate—surrounding the mining industry, with the planned closure of the Port Augusta power stations and the number of people who will be affected by a number of other ramp-downs. But it is not all bad news. The Commonwealth is spending over $70 million on the Cultana redevelopment, and I want to use this opportunity to once again tell businesses in my electorate that they should go on the Department of Defence's websites and have a look at the opportunities that are there for them to participate in this quite big spend in the local area. There are some concerns, because building is very tight in South Australia and the economy significantly lags behind the rest of Australia—I could go into the reasons but I do not think we have the time or forbearance now—that the major, headline contractors will tend to use their normal contractors, who might come from the city or even interstate. I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary about this on a number of occasions. We will continue to bang the drum to make sure there is as much local involvement as possible in these contracts.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Last week we saw unemployment rise to over 800,000. This is simply not good enough. Our unemployment is too high, our youth unemployment is too high, our long-term unemployment is too high and our underemployment is too high. We have neglected the unemployed and we have neglected the younger generation in particular. The situation has deteriorated markedly under this government. They show no interest in a manufacturing industry for Australia. Their 2014 budget of massive cuts was a replica of the austerity measures which have proved disastrous in Europe, and it eroded confidence.
This situation has been building up for years now. It is not only this government that is to blame. I am unimpressed by the media reporting of unemployment. In the first place, there is nowhere near enough of it. We seem to want to talk about anything but unemployment. There is way too little discussion of the things we need to tackle in order to unite us as a nation—such as unemployment. And, indeed, much of the reporting of the latest unemployment figures was smug, ivory tower economists' spin that things are not all that bad. It is just nonsense.
Unemployment is a recipe for social problems such as crime, drugs, mental health issues and homelessness. There is no way that we will successfully tackle these things against a background of 800,000 people out of work. We need to face up to the fact that unemployment in Australia is a real problem and talk more about it. We should stop being so smug about the agenda we have pursued for the past 30 years. We have been undergoing an experiment, and we have not been alone. Quite a few other countries have travelled the same path of free market liberalism. Its hallmarks have been globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, free movement of goods and free movement of people. Its advocates said that it would strengthen the Australian economy and make us more resilient to external shocks. But, far from making our economy more diverse and more resilient, we have become narrow and vulnerable. The advocates of globalisation and free trade knew perfectly well that this would kill off many of our existing manufacturing industries, but they claimed that competition would bring new industries—knowledge-intensive industries—to take their place. They were wrong. Instead of getting a more diverse economy we have become increasingly dependent on bulk exports. We are a specialist raw commodity exporter highly vulnerable to the ups and downs of commodity markets. For a time the mining boom obscured the pitfalls of this strategy. But with 800,000 people out of work the free market economists and business lobbyists have no clue about how to change this. They refuse to admit that their strategy has failed. They are unrepentant. Having dug us into this hole, they want us to keep digging.
It is going on in both the public sector and the private sector. In the public sector we have Australia Post. Australia Post's use of labour hire companies to contract out mail delivery has been disgraceful. Australia Post was expressly warned in 2012 and 2013 that labour hire companies were using cheap, unregulated labour that did not comply with minimum wages. They arrogantly dismissed these warnings, claiming in 2013 that their contractual relationships with contractors 'ensure they comply with the law and provide appropriate working terms and conditions for people they employ'. They were warned again in 2014. In December 2014, Joan Doyle from the Communication Workers Union wrote to an Australia Post regional manager in Dandenong South that Mr Baljit Singh had disclosed that he used six contractors to provide staff to perform his contracts with Australia Post in relation to Oz Trade and Services Pty Ltd. Joan Doyle pointed out that in November 2014 Australia Post had maintained that they were satisfied that there had been no breach of clause 7.8 of the Australia Post Enterprise Agreement 2013. She said the information now disclosed by Mr Singh undermined this view. She said it was a matter of fact that the agency staff had not received any superannuation payments, regardless of who they were legally employed by. She also said, 'I am also drawing to your attention once again the regular breach of immigration laws whereby workers on overseas student visas with therefore a restriction of 20 hours work per week are routinely working full hours and overtime.' She could hardly have been clearer, but Australia Post sat on its hands and turned a blind eye to these abuses.
Local managers were sending the student visa holders to get Australia Post security passes and then seeing that the students with limitations on their working hours were working full time and even overtime. It was an open secret in Australia Post for years. The overseas students are unaware of their rights. Those who are aware do not want to enforce their rights, because they have been working full time when they are only supposed to work 20 hours per week. They are really investing in obtaining permanent residence. The end result is that workers' conditions are rubbish—under-award wages, no superannuation and poor health and safety. The Communication Workers Union examined four bikes at Hoppers Crossing. Two were not even registered. When Baljit Singh's were examined at Whittlesea DC, all of them were faulted by Australia Post management. It is too late now for Australia Post to be chest-beating about 'not standing for any improper or illegal behaviour by contractors'. The fact is that these matters were drawn to their attention years ago and they did nothing about it. The action we are seeing now only arises because the Communication Workers Union contacted the Australian Federal Police. If it had been up to Australia Post, this scam would still be happening today. Australia Post's processes and procedures for ensuring mail contractors do the right thing have not been worth a brass razoo.
The Communication Workers Union says that other companies are not much better than Mr Singh in the way they treat their workers. They have case studies of exploitation involving KLMK, Aus-Lanka Express, Danhall and Zion Group. What Australia Post should do is make sure our mail is not being delivered by migrant workers on temporary work visas. The idea that with 800,000 people out of work in this country we cannot find any unemployed or underemployed Australians with the skills necessary to deliver the mail is just ridiculous.
It is not just Australia Post that has been asleep at the wheel. Mr Baljit Singh has not only had labour hire contracts with Australia Post but also been an owner of dodgy international student colleges paid millions of dollars as registered training providers. St Stephens Institute and TK Melbourne Education and Training College stand accused of providing fake qualifications to enable overseas students to get Australian visas. Despite whistleblowers providing evidence to the Australian Skills Quality Authority and to the immigration department about mismanagement, corruption, visa rorting and bribery, these colleges remain open for business.
Investigative reporters Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker from Fairfax hit the nail right on the head when they said:
Shonky colleges are creating a new underclass of migrant workers in Australia who are ... at risk of exploitation. Some readily agree to accept substandard pay and conditions in order to get a visa and a chance at obtaining permanent residency.
Exactly. They also said:
The visa rorting cottage industry is alive and well.
They are right about that too. The federal government needs to cut back these migrant worker programs, the dodgy student colleges, the ripping off of overseas workers and the neglect of the Australian ones which accompany them.
In the private sector we have Woolworths. Last week I addressed a rally at the Broadmeadows Town Hall, together with the member for Calwell, protesting against Woolworth's plans to close its Hume distribution centre in Broadmeadows. This decision is a slap across the face to both the workers who have served Woolworths loyally for many years and the Broadmeadows community which is battling with unemployment of over 23 per cent. Broadmeadows already has unemployment of Greek or Spanish proportions. These have been, until now, secure jobs that you can raise and feed a family with. It is very hard to find jobs like those in today's world of casual, part-time, insecure work. Victorian workers are struggling to find enough hours in record numbers with our underemployment rate now at its higher level in almost 40 years. Nine point five per cent of Victoria's workforce is now classified as underemployed—the highest percentage since the Bureau of Statistics started keeping records. Against this unfortunate background, the proposed closure of the Woolworths distribution centre in Broadmeadows will see up to 700 families lose an income and will have a devastating effect on what is already a disadvantaged area.
At the end of Jun, I held a Wills unemployment forum in Coburg due to my concern about the rise in local unemployment. That forum was really well attended and I was very encouraged by the positive suggestions put forward by people there, including our regional development experts. One of the things we discussed was making Melbourne's northern suburbs a food manufacturing precinct, building on the industry that we already have and building on the establishment of the fruit and vegetable market in Epping. Woolworths have the chance to be part of that. I urge them to rethink this decision and not blow that chance.
I rise in the chamber in the grievance debate this afternoon to talk about the Waltzing Matilda Centre in Winton. There is the history, the story and the custodians, and of course it has recently been in the news in relation to the trademark of Waltzing Matilda. First of all, more than 80 per cent of the land mass of Queensland is now drought declared. Some parts of my electorate have not only had three years of declared drought but are entering the fourth. Many pastoral properties in my electorate in the hardest hit areas have been de-stocked for two years. Dams are dry and the news that we get from the weather bureau is that there is an El Nino, which is a phenomenon that possibly will lead to worsening of the drought as we go through this summer and next autumn, which is the worst news that we could possibly want.
When the money runs out on land outside of town, it also starts to run out in town, because if there is not any money out of town there is not going to be any circulation of the wealth that is created from the pastoral sector: the shearers, the truck operators, the landholders spending on building supplies and materials to look after livestock, and the transport operators. All of that money is not there because there is no stock. The other point I want to make is that there are much better prices for sheep, wool and cattle right now. We are all seeing it on the news. That is great for those who have cattle to sell and it is great for those who have sheep or wool to sell, and so the story goes on. The people who have totally de-stocked have no income. They have had no income for two years and they are going into the third, and you can imagine what that does to the economy of many of the Western Queensland towns in my electorate. They are not grain growing areas that are going to rely, when the rains do come, on restocking. First of all, the grass has to grow before they restock to enable the animals to become productive.
I also want to highlight the issue of outback tourism, which is important to the economy of many of these western Queensland towns. As you could imagine, when the winter cold comes to southern Australia it is a great time for people there to move to the wonderful climate of Queensland, particularly in the outback. They have been travelling there in their thousands in their caravans and Winnebagos for many, many years. It is a very important part of the winter economy for hospitality providers, for motels, for fuel operators, for food outlets and for other spending that circulates in these towns. What it adds to the normal economy is really what drives many of these towns through the winter.
Of course, this year and last year there has not been that pastoral economy helping many of these western Queensland towns. So I just want to recognise those small business people and their employees—the workers, the shearers—and all of those people out there who have been affected by the drought. I also want to recognise the resilience of these people. They are stoic, resilient. As a government, we need to make sure that we do as much as we can to help them, and I say that we have to do more than we have been able to.
On 18 June this year, at the peak of the tourist season, the Waltzing Matilda Centre at Winton was gutted by fire. It was a tragedy. The centre had been built up over a number of years by the Winton Shire Council, raising and borrowing money and getting grants from the Commonwealth government and the state government to establish a centre where people could come and learn of the history and the story of what in many ways could be regarded as our unofficial national anthem and of the struggle that went on in 1895 when Banjo Paterson wrote the words to Waltzing Matilda at Dagworth Station. It was first played at the North Gregory Hotel—the old one, before it burned down—by Christina MacPherson on an old piano, and that not only gave birth to the music of Waltzing Matilda but also added to the story and the history which is a part of our very early history as a nation.
When I visited the centre with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss, two days after it had burnt down we met with the mayor and with community workers from the centre who had just been advised that they had lost their jobs. In fact, 18 jobs went when the fire gutted the centre. In a small town like Winton in the middle of a drought there are no more jobs around locally. The shire said, 'What will we do? How will we deal with this?' I am very pleased that they have been able to find part-time jobs for those who were employed by the shire council at the Waltzing Matilda Centre.
Neither the people of Winton nor the council will not be beaten by that fire. But I want to talk about the true resilience of the people of the outback. The people of Longreach, the people of Blackall and Barcaldine, the people of Boulia and of all those other towns out there that are part of this outback tourism experience offered their support. They offered jobs to those who had lost their jobs and they asked if they could help in any way. The Qantas Founders Museum and the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame offered artefacts to the centre at Winton because it established a place where people could still come and see part of the story and some of the artefacts. Those communities caring for each other is a real demonstration of the people of the outback. It was really displayed in the actions of those other centres like the Qantas Founders Museum and the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre. They provided those artefacts to the Shire of Winton so that they would have them on display to ensure that tourists still went to Winton.
Tourists can see some of the story, if not all that they want to. The theatrette was not destroyed, so the centre is able to utilise that. Of course, at Winton they have the Age of Dinosaurs. I think every young person wants to go and see where the great dinosaurs roamed across outback Queensland more than 96 million years ago. They have other attractions, and this is part of their economy, part of the gross domestic product of these communities, particularly in the winter.
The Waltzing Matilda Centre was lost to fire on 18 June, as I said earlier, but the Winton Shire, the people of Winton and the people of the outback are not going to be beaten by that tragedy. They have an application in to the stronger regions program to assist with the rebuilding of that Waltzing Matilda Centre. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, and those listening this afternoon, that I will be out there championing the cause for these people, because tourism is such a significant part of the gross domestic product for these communities. It does not drought-proof their economy, but it adds to their economy. Without it this year, in those towns, I can assure you, there would be little that would keep the fabric of those communities together, because of the ravages of the drought outside the towns and the impact it is having in the towns.
Can I just say that I do understand the story of Waltzing Matilda. In fact, I worked on cattle camps on Kynuna Station, which is right next door to Dagworth Station on the Diamantina river. It was at Dagworth that Christina Macpherson and Banjo Paterson were. Patterson wrote the story, inspired by the shearer's strike and the conflict between the pastoralists, the shearers and the troopers at that very early settlement stage of our development in outback Queensland. I have been to the Combo Waterhole. I know its significance. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker and anyone listening today, that if you were able to go there and if you walked past that billabong you could hear the ghost of the swagman as you walked past that billabong—it is a true experience that I can recommend to anyone. I have experienced it. It is part of our national story, our history and our heritage.
I say to those who think that they can claim the trademark as their own: I reject that notion. It belongs to all Australians. It truly does. You have only got to see a rugby match—or many games—to see that. In fact, even our troops overseas see Waltzing Matilda as a song that binds them together. It may have some trademark attachment to it in some areas, but it can not be exclusive to any Australian organisation. It belongs to all Australians, and at the Waltzing Matilda Centre in Winton, the Winton Shire are the ones who have ownership of it, have protected it and have told the story of it for all Australians. I commend them for their great work and their resilience, and I will be right behind them, pushing to make sure that they can rebuild successfully and, next tourism season, have the new centre up and running.
I am really here in this chamber tonight to speak about concerns that have been raised by my local taxi community, and they relate to the rise of the service called Uber and also its lack of compliance with Australian laws. Five years ago in San Francisco, the Uber transportation service was created by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp. Uber aimed to use its application, or app, on a mobile phone, to allow consumers with smart phones to submit an electronic booking request which would route to Uber drivers who used their own cars to provide a transportation service. From this concept five years ago, Uber is now available in 58 countries and 300 cities worldwide. It has become increasingly popular with younger Australians since it set up its operations in Australia three years ago.
What I am going to say is not going to be popular with young Australians, but young Australians need to be very concerned about services that are offered without appropriate workplace protections, and without the legal protections which would offer them protection when they used these services. I am a huge supporter of new forms of innovation. However, innovation must be bound by workplace laws, occupational health and safety laws and laws that provide insurance and commercial protections for users. We have laws governing taxi services at present, and it is my contention that those same laws should govern Uber services as well.
On 6 April, I met with representatives from Dandenong Taxis led by Mr Jaspreet Hayer. This group included Mr Nirmal Sekhon, Mr Charles Harrisson and Mr Ali Demirci, who are members from the local Afghan, Indian and Turkish communities. These leading figures from Dandenong Taxis drew their concerns about Uber to my attention. They drew a very powerful contrast between the regulations and laws they are subjected to versus what the providers of Uber services are required to meet.
For example, the Australian taxi community operates legally under the transportation act. Additionally, it pays government licence fees of up to $24,000 and full taxi insurance of $5,000; WorkCover is paid for drivers; liability gap insurance is paid for passengers; and full taxi registration is paid, and that is roughly $2,700 a year. The cab owners collect the GST and submit BAS statements. Their vehicles have to be no older than 6.5 years. Registered taxi drivers provide disabled passenger support. Annual vehicle roadworthiness checks have to be undertaken. Vehicle signage and decals are mandatory. Driver knowledge tests and driver police checks are undertaken. Blood alcohol readings of 0.0 per cent are required for professional drivers, and cameras in vehicles are required. Fares are set by government, and GPS tracking is mandatory for all cabs.
Here, by contrast, is what is required of the providers of the Uber service. They are not legal under the transportation act; they actually operate illegally, and they have been issued with cease-and-desist orders. They pay no licence fees to the government and pay no insurance for passengers. No WorkCover for passengers is required, and liability gap insurance is not required. Uber only pays the standard registration fees. Uber collects no GST and does not submit BAS statements. It only restricts the vehicles to be no older than 10 years. It does not mandatorily provide disabled passenger support. There are no roadworthiness checks required. It pays no signage fees. Uber drivers do not have to undertake a knowledge check, a test or a police check. They can have a blood alcohol level of up to 0.05, but no cameras are required in their cars. Fares are not set by the government, and there is no guarantee of GPS car tracking.
How on earth would anyone in this chamber say that that is a level playing field for our taxi drivers and taxi cab owners? As a member of parliament, I am deeply focused on jobs and workplace security. I am incredibly concerned about this new standard that is able to be used by Uber and its drivers because they are contractors, not employees. Many Australians enjoy renting out their room via Airbnb and driving their cars under Uber, but what we are starting to see, and what we are hearing from across the country and around the world, is that—notwithstanding the new employment opportunities that are arising—they are raising very hard questions about workplace protections and what employment conditions will look like in the future.
Uber's classification of drivers as contractors means that the company is not responsible for all sorts of employment protections and conditions, such as fair pay, sick leave, annual leave, paid parental leave, superannuation, car maintenance and much more. If all drivers were classified as employees, Uber would have to provide these conditions and protections, as well as to manage a workforce of more than a million people internationally. Uber drivers are not granted proper employment agreements as contractors to ensure their rights at work are protected. This is, in my mind, a dangerously deregulated environment. We have seen and heard examples of customers that have suffered abuse from Uber drivers, customers who have caught drivers texting whilst driving and customers who have been driven in cars that have encountered serious mechanical difficulties because they are not roadworthy and there is no body to force them to be roadworthy.
I am advised that there are more than a million Australians who use Uber. It has 15,000 drivers—4,500 in my own state of Victoria. What I am saying here might not be popular with some of the younger users or with people who might be looking for employment via Uber, but I make the point to them: why would you work in such a dangerous, deregulated environment, and why would you catch a service which is so deregulated? It is a bit like hopping on a plane that does not have a commercially qualified pilot, does not have to be subjected to airworthiness checks, and one where, if something happened, you would not be covered by insurance. It is the same parallel as a form of transport that requires you to be going from point A to point B. I think that, if more young people and people using these services were actually thinking about what they were doing in getting into these services or even providing these services, they would have second thoughts.
In Australia, and in my local taxi community, they are not perfect but they strive to ensure customer safety. In most states there are police checks on taxi drivers, there are mechanical checks, and there are cameras, screens, GPS and emergency call buttons in their taxis. The taxi drivers that I talk to suggest that at the very least, even as a starting point, Uber's Australia and New Zealand operations consider improving customer safety, ensure Uber drivers undergo police and accreditation checks, and check their vehicles.
The consistent theme that has emerged in my consultations with consumers, and taxi owners and drivers, is that, instead of standing up for working people, Uber just wishes to play outside the rules. Of course Uber will gain an advantage if it is not appropriately regulated—it does. It has been created in a way to provide less transparent and more cost-effective ways of providing this service, but the price is no safeguards and no protections for drivers and customers. If the same standards now applied to the Australian taxi community—if you are looking at trying to 'reduce down' to a level playing field—then the taxi environment generally would be completely commercially unsafe. We would basically have to create a system that was really detrimental to everyone that would be using a taxi service. Uber makes the case, apparently, for taxi reform but then does not want to play on a level playing field. There may be some requirement for modernisation of taxi services, but not like this—not without the protections.
The key thing is the concerns of people that have bought in, that have invested, whose livelihoods are involved. One gentleman that I spoke to, who was present at that meeting, spent half a million dollars buying a taxi plate. His future, and his family's future, were based on that investment, and that investment could basically be wiped off the map if Uber is allowed to continue to offer its services untrammelled in the way in which it has. The other thing that is of deep concern to people is the issue of not paying GST. Uber does not want to pay GST; it does not want to pay its fair share of tax. It has been concerning to hear that Uber has taken the ATO to court over even occasional drivers having to register for the GST. Australians believe any company that operates in Australia and their employees, like Uber drivers, should pay their fair share. So Uber is even attempting to avoid that particular commitment.
I think that it was a very compelling meeting and I thank those who were present on Thursday. It was a very serious meeting about the concerns that these taxi drivers have for this unregulated, deregulated, dangerous environment that is being offered by a $50 billion multinational company. I think we should have a meeting of transport ministers. We need to resolve these things. We need to regulate Uber so it does not continue to provide these dangerous and unsafe services in this country.
On 18 June 2015 the Senate referred the Water Amendment Bill 2015 provisions for inquiry and report. The closing date for submissions was Friday, 31 July. Given that this was, in effect, one of the best kept Senate secrets, there has now been an extension of time for people to make informed submissions to this inquiry. In fact, it will remain open, and people can make lodgements of submissions, up until Friday, 21 August. I really implore people, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, to put a submission in.
What is this about? The bill proposes to amend the Water Act 2007 to impose a duty on the Commonwealth not to exceed the 1,500 gigalitre limits on surface water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin, which in effect, or in common parlance, means that the Commonwealth is not to buy back any more water off irrigators beyond 1,500 gigalitres. Most of that water has already been found—in fact, there are only several hundred gigalitres still to be purchased under the original agreements. Indeed, in the case of some states like Victoria, there has already been an extraordinary buyback of irrigators' water, well beyond what was anticipated, with very difficult consequences for people's viability on their properties.
The problem is that the Murray-Darling Basin strategy—which, of course, is derived from the plan—is now seriously unbalanced. We no longer have a triple bottom line, if in fact it ever existed from the time the plan was put into play. It was meant to be a balance of the environment, the community and the economy. In fact, the business of more and more water flowing to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is now very much to the detriment of irrigators' or water users' stock and domestic purposes in the basin. The CEWH, as it is commonly called, now owns 4½ times the volume of Sydney Harbour. It is impossible for it to use that volume. It has only used half of it since its inception.
We put into play certain mechanisms, at the beginning of the plan, when it was not understood what the impacts of the millennium drought would be. These mechanisms were, for example, that, if the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder traded any of its huge holdings of water, every dollar earned through those trades would be spent on further water buyback. So when this bill comes into the house to be debated, about the 1,500 gigalitre cap on further buyback from irrigators, we will have the nonsense situation where there is still another element of an act which says that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can continue to buy back water if it in fact chooses to trade. That is a nonsense. It is completely contradictory to the 1,500 gigalitre cap, which, of course, I and pretty much every water user in the basin overwhelmingly supports.
So we have got to fix the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's current restraints on being able to spend any traded moneys earned instead on environmental works and measures, which would be a much better use of its finances. And it could also help to pay its own way with moneys earned through trading. The trading of its huge water pool is essential for many parts of the basin to survive in terms of its productive capacity. At the same time, the water can have multiple uses; it is not to the detriment of the environment, given the way the water trading rules have been constructed, if it trades at the right time and with the right environmental measures considered carefully.
The problem for us is that there is also the on-farm water use efficiency grant system in both New South Wales and Victoria. There, again, as the Commonwealth offers these grants to irrigators they must, in the case of Victoria, give back 59 per cent of any savings to—guess who—the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. So, again, while we are putting a cap on further buybacks—a 1,500 gigalitre limit—we are allowing the on-farm water use efficiency grants to siphon off more of the irrigators' pool to the bucket of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Again, that is a contradiction—and we must sort this out urgently.
The problem is that no-one imagined the impact of the millennium drought, the worst drought on record, and the pressure that banks would put on irrigators to sell their water in the tenders that were offered by the then Minister for the Environment, Penny Wong. She saw an opportunity; it was a clever ruse at the time. Irrigators were told they could put in a tender, a bid, to sell their water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The banks seized the opportunity because, in the case of Victoria, the water had recently been unbundled, meaning it could be separated from the land's title. So the banks said to my irrigators in particular in the Goulburn-Murray water system: 'If you sell your water, we won't foreclose. You owe us a million dollars. You know you are now really up against it in terms of surviving this drought. So sell your water, pay down all or most of your debt and we will take the foot of your throat for a little while longer.' And half of my dairy farmers did that; over 1,000 irrigators sold all or most of their water.
The problem moving forward, of course, is that the irrigators imagined they could then depend on the temporary water market. That temporary water market, unfortunately, is now a fraction of the volume it once was—given that so much water has been moved out of the irrigators' pool and to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder—and it is now a speculator's dream. Again, Victoria, on the advice of the ACCC, removed any cap on non-irrigator participation in the temporary water market. So today we have governments—such as the Victorian government and the South Australian government—speculating in the irrigators' water market. The South Australian government the other day bought up eight gigalitres; it thought it was doing it secretly—until the outrage and hostility of my irrigators became so loud as they made it quite clear that buying irrigators' water to take to the consumers of Adelaide as a cheaper option than turning on their desalination plant was not an ethical or acceptable thing to do. The Victorian government has 74 gigalitres that Melbourne Water—the authority it owns—plays with in the speculatory market each year. That 74 gigalitres has made Melbourne Water the richest water authority in Victoria. No doubt, it is paying very nice dividends back to the Victorian government for that speculation.
We have overseas and domestic superannuation companies playing in that market. The price is now $220 a megalitre. A dairy farmer is out of that market at about $80. So we now have the destruction of the dairy industry of northern Victoria because that temporary water market is what they now depend on—more than half of my dairy farmers. It is not looking like coming down in price at any time soon. It has gone from $30 to $210 in three years. The market is corrupted. It is not transparent. Anyone can be a water trader. You just put your A-frame up outside your shopfront. There are no mandated qualifications to trade in this water. There are no probity standards required. It is impossible to find out who is buying the water or who is selling it. You have to believe the real estate agent as to the price of water on the day.
I have taken this to the ACCC who are mightily interested in such a corrupted and non-transparent and non-competitive market. I am hoping they are going to do something about it, but they will not be completing their report until the end of the year. That means another irrigation season will face not enough water available to irrigators who produce dairy product from what was the food bowl of Australia for our export earnings and for our jobs in order to keep our dairy manufacturers going. This is a completely unintended appalling situation; a series of hopeless mistakes and unintended consequences, for sure, but it does not mean we should not be fixing it urgently.
I want to make sure that people also understand that the constraints strategy will also be dealt with in this new bill, the Water Act 2007 amendments. This is an additional 450 gigalitres to keep the mouth of the Murray open and flowing 95 per cent of the time without the aid of bulldozers, which is a nonsense environmental proposition. Unfortunately, it is l-a-w law. It was a South Australian demand in return for them signing up to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the act with which was passed in February 2013. This constraints strategy is going to flood out the middle and upper Murray every two or three years and cause environmental problems like salinity, the blackwater events and the waterlogging that we have not seen since the 1970s—another tragedy for the Murray-Darling Basin.
I say: for heaven's sake, people, get your submissions in to this inquiry's extension. You can get your submissions in by 21 August, this Friday. It is essential that all voices are heard.
I rise to grieve about the absolute duplicity and dishonesty of this government and in particular the communications minister with regard to the National Broadband Network long-term satellite service. The NBN satellites comprise one part of NBN's delivery infrastructure; the other two being the fixed line network and the fixed wireless network. These long-term KA-band NBN satellites will replace the interim NBN satellite service. The former Labor government announced in February 2012 that it would build these satellites to provide high-speed broadband to regional and remote Australia with a launch date due for 2015. The reason Labor embarked on constructing these long-term satellites was because we believe that all Australians, regardless of where they live, deserve quality broadband, which was not provided during the Howard years.
The massive take-up of broadband services on the interim satellite service reflected how poorly served remote Australia was during the Howard years when regional communities were left with a substandard service via the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This was one of the many utter failures of the Howard government when it came to communications infrastructure throughout Australia. It is for these reasons that Labor launched the interim satellite service and announce the construction and launch of the long-term satellite service. This journey took another step forward last Thursday when the Minister for Communications announced the specific launch date for the first of these satellites, saying:
Blasting off from French Guiana on 1 October 2015, the launch date is a huge step forward for those living in regional and remote Australia, with more than 200,000 homes and businesses set to be covered.
The nbn long term satellite service will be a game changer for those living in the bush and will help bridge the digital divide currently experienced by many.
The minister's description of the long-term satellite service as a game-changer which will be a huge step forward for those living in regional and remote Australia came as somewhat of a surprise to me. That is because the member for Wentworth, when was the shadow minister for communications and was on a crusade to demolish the NBN, condemned these satellites as a 'Rolls Royce solution' and as 'wasteful spending'. What was then wasteful spending is now a game changer for regional and remote Australia. The inconsistency is breathtaking.
But the Minister's contempt for the long term satellite service did not stop there. In 2012, the member for Wentworth argued that the NBN Co should be renting capacity on existing satellites, rather than building and launching its own satellites. He said, 'There is enough capacity on private satellites already in orbit or scheduled for launch for the NBN to deliver broadband to the 200,000 or so premises in remote Australia, without building its own.' He also said at the time, 'Once again the NBN is investing more than it is needed to achieve its mission.' And he was not done there, tweeting on 7 February 2012, 'Why buy when you can rent?'
But as we all know, he was wrong about existing capacity being sufficient to provide broadband, and you do not need to take my word for it. Optus contradicted the minister on this at the time, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, on 13 February 2012, we see the example of what I call 'the Turnbull triumvirate', where he criticises, then he takes credit, and then he blames everybody else. Have a look at Lucy Battersby's story, 'NBN satellite stoush: Malcolm Turnbull wrong, says Optus':
Optus chief executive Paul O'Sullivan has defended NBN Co's decision to construct and launch its own satellites, saying his company would not be able to provide the same quality of broadband service on its existing commercial satellites.
The satellites which NBN Co is building are specifically built to carry broadband traffic, while Optus's satellites are designed to carry television and video services, O'Sullivan explained. Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull last week criticised NBN Co for building new machinery instead of buying capacity on existing services. When these two NBN satellites are launched, there will be huge spare capacity on them.
Once again, the NBN is investing more than is needed to achieve its mission. Once again, the incentive will be for this giant new Government monopoly to intrude into other markets, and undermine existing private sector providers.
The article continues, and this is instructive:
However Mr O'Sullivan said NBN Co had made the right decision because of technical differences between different satellite types.
Part of the issue around this debate is that there are fundamental differences in satellite between the Ku band, which we use, and the Ka band, which is increasingly used internationally for broadband services.
The reason I want to go into detail on that point has to do with the article 'NBN rebuffs slow net anxieties', which appeared in The Australian on 3 August. We have NBN Chief Customer Officer, John Simon, saying, in relation to these two different bands, that they are 'like comparing apples with lemons'. He said:
The interim service involves leasing bandwidth from other providers to deliver a temporary service to around 32, 000 customers. By contrast, the long-term service will see two dedicated satellites launched into space purely to serve the needs of broadband users in the bush. Mr Simon described the long-term service as 'a real game-changer' for rural and remote customers.
The article goes on to say:
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull also sought to distinguish between the interim and long-term services, blaming in a blog post to appear on his website today the previous Labor government.
Of course he did. He is probably writing one right now. I also refer to the satellite scheduled for launch that was referred to by the member for Wentworth at the time, which was NewSat's Jabiru. NewSat has since gone into liquidation, as the Sydney Morning Herald reported in April this year:
NBN Co's former chief executive has defended the decision to build its own satellites as the much touted private-sector alternative, Melbourne-based NewSat, files for bankruptcy and heads into voluntary administration amid allegations of mismanagement and mis-spending. NewSat was repeatedly mentioned as a private-sector solution for NBN Co's satellite services for several years by its chief executive … and even by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who described the company as 'pretty capable'.
What an eye to future from this minister. We saw this lack of vision, this lack of forward planning, in the minister's much criticised cost benefit analysis of the NBN. It just reflects what an eye to the future this minister does not have.
We know from the cost-benefit analysis, which somehow concluded that Australia's bandwidth needs will actually decrease over time, that according to the minister in 2023, in less than 10 years' time, the bandwidth requirements of a median household will be 15 megabits per second. As the CEO of the Singapore telco MyRepublic, Malcolm Rodrigues, said last week to the AFR:
I don't know what [the government] is doing on the other policy fronts but on this—
that is, their management of the NBN—
they've completely stuffed it … More and more Australians will leave the country looking for jobs and you'll continue to be a resource based economy—the hope of building IT jobs and a digital economy will kind of be more difficult to achieve.
Fortunately, the contracts for the build and launch of these satellites had been finalised, and this government was not able to tear them up.
Labor's new satellites will transform health and education delivery for the bush, and improve the way businesses do business. Labor understands that broadband is an essential utility, like electricity or water. That is why we commissioned these satellites: to give people in remote areas the benefits of broadband. We have been completely consistent on the need for these satellites, and on the need for a national broadband network that will deliver fast, reliable and affordable broadband no matter where Australians live or do business. Unfortunately, this Minister for Communications has not been so consistent.
I would also like to note, talking about inconsistency, that this minister waxed lyrical about transparency, but he has also been caught removing some of his more critical NBN satellite posts on this very issue from his website. Try doing a search for this entry from 8 February 2012, 'Satellite deal—more wasteful NBN spending'. Try to find this on the minister's website, like I did recently; it appears to have been removed. But, as the minister is finding out, the internet never forgets, and this post has been archived for all of us to see. We know that delivering the NBN is critical to people and to businesses, irrespective of where people live or work. You only need to look at the 2011-12 regional telecommunications review on the issue of satellite technologies, which said:
The strong initial uptake of the ISS clearly demonstrates the pent-up demand for better broadband.
This is what Labor was left with—an incredibly huge amount of pent-up demand. Finding 4.5 said:
The NBN Interim Satellite Service … offers an immediate improvement in high-speed broadband availability to people and businesses in regional Australia.
This was the legacy left by a Howard government with no foresight whatsoever to do anything about improving broadband in regional and remote areas. We know that John Howard was at least consistent on being stuck in the past; unfortunately, his communications minister's inconsistency is— (Time expired)
I rise to speak after that complete rewriting of history. This week the coalition announced its policy of CO2 reductions going forward to 2030. I thought it might be of benefit to the House to give a precis of my recent trip to Germany during the winter recess—a private trip—to, amongst other things, look at Energiewende, which is the German policy of transformation from fossil fuel to renewable energies. I met with a large range of government officials, industry groups, generators, regulators, green lobbyists, a parliamentary member and the Australian ambassador, David Ritchie, to discuss Germany's progress in its plans to make the country 80 per cent reliant on renewable energy by the middle of this century. Like most major issues facing governments worldwide, there is nothing simple and there are almost always responses to policy changes that are not necessarily predicted.
When it comes to electricity, one of the most salient points as far as Australia goes is understanding the interconnectivity of Germany to greater Europe and the opportunities this offers—and the negatives as well, but I will come to that later. The Germans' emissions trading authority is largely based in Dassel and, in combination with the Berlin contingency, they employ 1,500 to 1,600 people. Heavy industries using in excess of 20 megawatt hours per annum are exempt from the system and they are also eligible for low interest loans. In 2010 the German government set 12 goals to transition to renewable energy. Their policy of Energiewende—or, in English, energy transformation—plans a 20 per cent reduction of CO2 by 2020 and 50 per cent by 2050—not just electricity but the whole market. How they will achieve this outcome is not clear, but they do have the benefit of quickly evolving technologies.
Other events have driven their commitment to prematurely retire their nuclear power plants by 2022. They have eight left, totalling 20 megawatts of capacity. For my constituents, that is almost 20 times the size of the Alinta power station at Port Augusta, now scheduled for premature closure sometime in the next 18 months. Eighteen per cent of Germany's electricity comes from fermented agricultural products—ethanol—and it is of interest that the policy encouraging farmers to grow corn for this purpose is now being wound back because it was displacing food production. It reaffirms my thoughts that biofuels should be developed from agricultural waste products, not from food. This decision probably means there are no upsides left for the German energy market in biofuels.
Germany still consumes a significant amount of coal- and lignite-generated electricity, and two new coal power stations have been opened in the last few years. They have, though, now announced an intention to phase out hard coal, which is black coal, by 2018 and lignite by 2040. It is hard to believe that this will not lead to significant litigation from companies seeking compensation.
I met with E.ON, one of three major electricity producers in Germany. They have long-term gas contracts with Russia. However, political instability is a concern. Norway is a good, reliable supplier. A number of representatives I met with, including the head of the Australian-German parliamentary friendship group, Volkmar Klein, expressed a keen interest in Australian gas supplies to reduce their dependence on the Russian market. Sovereignty of supply is a very important issue in Germany. E.ON operate a number of nuclear facilities that will be forced to close by 2022, and at this stage they have not been offered any compensation, but it is difficult to see that this too will not become a major issue. It is of note, perhaps, for the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission that they have 14 billion euros in reserve to deal with the clean-up and long-term storage of waste.
The very low price of the emissions trading scheme in Europe at the moment is a concern and is having mixed effects—so much so that they are actually mothballing a new, highly efficient gas-fired power station. Small solar and high feed-in tariffs are causing some issues as well, leading to a situation where more than 50 per cent of consumers' electricity bills are now taxes and subsidies.
There are concerns about how Germany will cope with the large amount of baseload electricity which will be removed in the near future—nuclear, lignite and hard coal. The effects of the policy mix are resulting in new investment in electricity all being renewable, which one would think is a good thing, but there is no clear plan on how to deal with the loss of baseload generators except by importing more nuclear power from France. I met with the department of economic and environmental affairs. They informed me that wind is now producing 38 gigawatt hours per annum, 20 to 25 per cent of which is coming from offshore facilities. Offshore it is windier and is achieving better than 50 per cent efficiency, which is very encouraging, with only 100 hours a year becalmed. So it is much more stable than onshore, but it is also much more expensive. The better sites on land are taken, and there is some resistance, particularly in the south, to more wind farms.
It is interesting to note that, while small business and household consumers have some of the dearest electricity in the world—about 50 per cent higher than here in Australia—their heavy industries are exempted from the system, have benefited from oversupply in the market and have access to cheap electricity driven by policies designed to promote investment in renewables. Like Australia, Germany has chosen a path where subsidised investment in renewables had led to an oversupply in the electricity market and depressed wholesale prices. The market, as I referred to in my opening comments, has a safety valve where they can export surplus electricity. However, this is relatively expensive electricity, with its price reduced by subsidies from German households and small to medium business. I said before that heavy industry, of course, is exempt. The German public have been very supportive of Energiewende, but it is unknown, as the price continues to rise, whether they will continue to tolerate this. One supplier told me that 30 per cent of their customers were under duress, meaning they needed assistance to meet their electricity bills.
I met with another energy company, Vattenfall. They informed me that they had made big advances in efficiency in their newest lignite power stations—43 to 45 per cent efficiency, or 930 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour. It is important to understand that Germany has a seemingly different disposition to lignite insomuch as they have domestic supplies as opposed to hard coal and gas, which is all important. Vattenfall claim the German electricity market is about 60 per cent oversupplied and are very concerned for new investment. At this stage, there is only subsidised investment in the pipeline, meaning wind and solar, and there are rising concerns as to what will replace the baseload generation. It is a very familiar issue to us here in Australia. Perhaps the conundrum of cheap, affordable storage for renewables will be met by the revolution in battery production, but it seems to me that at this stage they are just not sure.
Interestingly, in Northern Europe peak demand for energy is for heating in winter, not summertime air conditioning, as is the case here. Much of the energy required for heating is not provided by the electricity grid but by direct heating systems affecting total CO2 emissions but not those associated with electricity. It is just another of the idiosyncrasies to consider when comparing our system with theirs. The Danes have been held up as world leaders in the switch to renewables but have had to construct giant hot water tanks to facilitate the use of renewable energy in city heating systems. Germany is just beginning to follow that path. The Danes are seeing their generation industry being corrupted by cheap subsidised German electricity flooding their market in times of surplus. One would think they may be very happy with this outcome, but unfortunately this in turn is undermining their business models.
Vattenfall operate 40 per cent of the German hydro system, which for many years has operated as batteries by pumping water uphill at night on cheap energy to release in the afternoon market peaks. This is something we do in Australia too. It is the perfect battery. However, the advent of solar PV has curbed the afternoon peak, thus destroying the profit motive for water storage. In effect, a subsidised renewable source has replaced another unsubsidised and profitable renewable energy source. It is definitely one of those conundrums for policymakers and is one of the things we need to be very mindful of in Australia as we move forward in our energy transformation. We have all been in awe of the German economy, which to a large extent holds the EU together. It is worth noting that Deutsche Bank has reported that there has already been significant carbon leakage from the German economy, particularly in small to medium businesses which do not receive the exemptions from the ETS policy. They consider it to be a slow burn. Long-term investments are increasingly going somewhere else. The reduction in CO2for electricity, as opposed to total emissions, was to be 30 per cent by 2020, and then in 2010 the government decided to go for 40 per cent. It was at this time that it extended the nuclear envelope from 2020 to 2030. The Fukushima disaster occurred and within three weeks they had abandoned the 2030 time line and reverted to 2020, but did not review the 40 per cent target, which is likely to impact quite heavily. There are now concerns about the impact of the short-term targets. It is a bit of a perfect storm.
I have more to add to that at a later stage. It is valuable information, so I hope to come back to it.
Before I call the member for Fraser, I understand it suits the convenience of the Federation Chamber for the grievance debate to continue for a further 60 minutes. There being no objection, the chair will allow that course to be followed.
Jay Franklin lives in constant pain and has all his life. He has a congenital bowel disease known as Hirschsprung disease. As a result, his pelvic cavity is riddled with infection, even after more than 100 operations. In 2013, the Victorian man announced his plans to buy a one-way ticket to Switzerland where he was to receive life-ending medication. However, because of the severity of his condition doctors were unsure if his digestive system would be able to absorb the drugs that were intended to end his life. They were concerned the drugs might, instead, leave him in a vegetative state. Jay decided not to board the plane to Switzerland. Instead, he became a passionate advocate for voluntary euthanasia in Australia, running as a Victorian state candidate for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party in 2014.
Popular opinion in Australia is clear on this issue. A 2009 Newspoll survey found that 85 per cent of Australians support or advocate for voluntary euthanasia. Another Newspoll survey three years later garnered near identical results. Nearly one in four of those surveyed in the 2012 poll would even change their vote if the candidate they otherwise would have voted for was opposed to assisted dying law reform. Three out of four Catholics, four out of five Anglicans and over nine out of 10 Australians with no religion say they, in principle, support voluntary euthanasia. There is almost no difference across age groups, with middle-aged people being those who favour voluntary euthanasia the most, and limited differences across political parties. In 2012 the Australia Institute released their national survey of 1,422 people, also finding 71 per cent support voluntary euthanasia.
As someone who believes in the Burkean principle of representative democracy, I do not think that we in this place should blindly follow polls, but this level of community support should not be ignored. In 1995 the Northern Territory legalised voluntary euthanasia, albeit for just eight months before the Commonwealth parliament passed the so-called 'Andrews bill', named the after member for Menzies, which restricted the ACT and the Northern Territory from legalising or legislating on euthanasia. In those eight months before the Northern Territory law was overridden, three people died under the law, two of whom were terminally-ill cancer patients. The other had a rare disease. The Northern Territory law required that the patient be over 18, be mentally and physically able to request his or her own death and have the approval of three doctors, including an appropriate specialist and a psychiatrist. If all of those criteria were met, a nine-day cooling-off period would follow.
Since then, every state and territory except Queensland has seen attempts to introduce euthanasia reform. All in all, there have been over 30 attempts at reform. Despite the strong community support to which I referred earlier, all of these attempts at reform have failed. In the ACT, Mary Porter MLA has engaged Canberrans in a serious conversation about end-of-life issues. End-of-life plans have to be talked about regardless of one's views on voluntary euthanasia. Last year Mary Porter held a very insightful end-of-life forum and plans on doing the same this year. She has also reported on the policies of Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands in the hope of finding the best policy mix for the ACT and for Australia. Mary Porter's report, which I recommend to the House, can be viewed online.
Much evidence from international jurisdictions has been gathered since the Northern Territory passed its act in 1995. In the previous year, voters in the state of Oregon passed a ballot initiative known as the Death with Dignity bill. The state legislature attempted to override that bill in 1997, and the override attempt was itself overridden by the people of Oregon with a 60 per cent majority. Four other states have followed Oregon's lead and many 'death with dignity' organisations have since sprung up around the United States.
There are, of course, legitimate concerns over legalising doctor assisted dying. The right checks and balances need to be in place, but I do believe the Death with Dignity Act is a good place to start. Under that act, the patient requesting help must do so voluntarily and in the company of witnesses. Physicians may object to participating on moral grounds, and the person requesting help must be briefed on alternatives such as pain relief and hospice care. Most importantly, the patient must be of sound mind, their judgement must be unimpaired and they must have less than six months to live—that is, they must be terminally ill. These last two conditions must be reviewed and approved by a second doctor, and a cooling-off period of 15 days then ensues.
The Oregon example also serves as evidence of how to avoid the slippery slope that many rightly fear. Since 1997, 1,327 people in Oregon have been prescribed life-ending medication. Of these people, about four-fifths had terminal cancer. Contrary to what some feared might happen, Oregon's laws have not been used by poor and vulnerable people with no health insurance. Nor has demand for help been driven by hospice care not being widely available. Almost all who have asked for help have been insured and educated and had access to hospice care. Indeed, evidence from Brunel University's Clive Seale suggests terminal cancer patients in British hospices are more likely—not less—to consider doctor assisted dying than those in hospitals. In fact, the loss of autonomy and the loss of dignity—people's inability to do the things essential to living—are the most common reasons provided by those who have asked for help in Oregon. They were asking for help because of the fear of loss of dignity, not because they were in fear of pain.
I am not alone in pushing for a broader debate on the issue of euthanasia. As we speak, Britain is having a robust debate inside and outside of parliament about the Oregon model. The British Labour Party is pushing in that debate for the terminally ill to have a say on how their death takes place. The Netherlands and Belgium have also had their own models in place for more than a decade. In both places, doctors can administer the medication themselves instead of only allowing patients to do so, as is the case in Oregon. In the Netherlands, doctor assisted dying is also available to non-terminally ill patients who suffer crippling or debilitating pain from incurable illness. The Dutch case is important because they consciously decided to regulate instead of turning a blind eye to doctors prescribing or discreetly providing lethal medicine to the terminally ill. Doctors in the Netherlands can opt out of this as they choose. It is the case in the Netherlands, as in Oregon, that terminally ill cancer patients make up most of those who seek out euthanasia.
As the recent increase in the use of the life-ending drug Nembutal in Australia suggests, euthanasia is a serious issue in our country. As Australia 21 reported, both voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying occur not infrequently. Similarly, a study in the Medical Journal of Australia concluded that, in 1995-96, approximately:
… 1.8% cent of all deaths in Australia occurred as a result of voluntary euthanasia and 0.1 per cent of deaths were due to physician-assisted suicide.
On top of this, the study found:
An estimated 3.5% … of all Australian deaths involved termination of the patient's life without the patient's explicit request.
This is problematic because some people have access to help as a result of having a certain mental or physical condition while others who might want that help cannot get it. A law that applies to some and not others is arbitrary and against the spirit of equality. It, therefore, suggests to me that the current law is operating in a way that is deficient. I believe that knowing that some doctors assist dying patients while not knowing their legal protections is not a wise approach for a law-abiding society. There must be legal clarity and the Dutch example serves to remind us of the importance of avoiding legal grey areas, inconsistencies and stretching or shrinking boundaries.
Support for doctor assisted dying also has grown internationally. A poll by The Economist recently found that doctors being allowed to prescribe lethal medication for patients who are close to death or suffering unbearably is gathering support across the Western world. Adults in 13 out of 15 countries support the idea in principle. Right now, legislation or legal cases are in progress in Britain, Canada, Germany, South Africa and around 20 American states, with euthanasia legal in five US states. Polling has also found that the attitudes of doctors are changing in Britain and America, even if their associations are officially neutral or against.
Morally, changing Australia's laws is about accepting patients' individuality, dignity and autonomy. I believe in the sanctity of life, but that belief in the sanctity of life is not a justification for denying choice for those who are terminally ill. This is about giving people a choice—a say—in how their death happens. I believe community attitudes have been changing for many years and it is time that politicians listened. In the words of Stephen Hawking, who said that he would consider help to die when he believes the time is right:
To keep someone alive against their wishes is the ultimate indignity.
I wish to inform the House of grants I recently announced, the Dandenong Ranges environment and bushfire fuel management community grants. In fact, the program will see a massive $2.4 million awarded to local community groups. Back in 2007, under the Howard government, and 2010, I made election commitments of $3 million. Sadly, in 2007 it was not matched by the Labor Party, which came into government. In 2010, we made the same announcement. Again, it was not matched by the Labor government.
The great news is that we now have the money on the ground. This is an idea I have been pursuing for a number of years, but we tweaked it a tiny bit—actually, a fair bit—in 2013. That was as a result of a meeting at the Olinda community hall. Previously, the grants were very much centred around weed control in the Dandenong Ranges. After attending a meeting in Olinda I became a lot more wise. Thanks so much to people like Peter Brennan from the Dandenong Ranges landscape strategy group and community advisory group and Jo Hirst from that group. Approximately 300 people turned up at that meeting. As a candidate I just listened in, that night, to hear what they were talking about. Peter Brennan was talking about the great concern of the bushfire threat in the Dandenong Ranges. It surprised me and many local residents that 60 per cent of bush up in the Dandenong Ranges is on private land, 24 per cent is on crown land and the remainder is on other types of land.
It was then I realised that for this commitment—which I was going to make again in 2013—we could potentially use this funding, which was previously going to be used on private land, also on crown land. The big reason for this is that we have issues, for example, where the CFA want to do a controlled burn but they cannot do it on private land and they may not be able to do it on crown land. At the same time, environmental groups are really trying to engage private stakeholders to get involved, and sometimes residents are reluctant to get involved.
I would like to thank the environment minister, Greg Hunt. When we made this commitment he was the one who signed it off and could see its value. It has become a bit of a pilot project, in the Dandenong Ranges, which hopefully will be rolled out right across the nation. I would like to give a very special thanks to Stephen Thuan from the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA. Stephen and I have had numerous conversations about how best to have the grants rolled out. What we decided to put in place was a panel, and on this panel we would meet the needs of those concerned about the environment and weeds and those concerned about bushfires. Remember, the Dandenong Ranges did suffer the devastation of the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires, so it is very important.
It was great to have Sharon Merritt from the CFA involved. Sometimes we find the CFAs do not want to get involved, but this time we got them on the panel and Sharon has been doing a fantastic job. Thanks also to Steve Pascoe, from the Dandenong Ranges Bushfire Landscape Project Emergency Management Victoria. Again, having him on this committee is vitally important. Thanks to Barry McGee of Dandenong Ranges landscape strategy community advisory group for all the work he has done. Thanks also to Gaye Gadsden from Yarra Ranges Council; Bernice Dowling from Parks Victoria; Anne Fitzpatrick from Yarra Ranges Landcare Network, who has been working closely with all of the groups; Michael Basson from the Department of the Environment, Land, Water and Planning; and Marianne Sawyer from the Cardinia Shire Council. This is a fantastic panel, which looks at all the projects and recipients.
It was with great pleasure at Emerald Lake Park that I made the announcements. The groups are: Chandler Hill Parkcare Group, with $2,050 for contract spraying of areas of weed infestation and thank you to Swee Oon for your work; John Hills Landcare Group Incorporated, with $5,000 for weed cap on Avonsleigh Common, and thanks to Karen Alexander—I have known Karen since 2004 and she has done so much for the environment; Southern Ranges Environment Alliance, with $6,640 for the Cockatoo Creek vegetation management project, and thank you, Coral Hunter, for your work. Also, I must make a very special mention of Glenn Brooks-MacMillan from the Southern Ranges Environment Alliance. Glenn has been absolutely fantastic, helping us work with Steve and Peter to get this project up and running.
I thank Friends of Hazel Vale Valley Tecoma; there is $9,990 for their restoration project, and thank you very much to Anne Elizabeth for everything you have done. For Friends of Ferny Creek Incorporated there is $10,000 for increased biodiversity in Ferny Creek, and thanks to Bill Incoll. Bill is one of those people who has dedicated a lot of his life to helping out the hills. He also was involved in the Friends of Sherbrooke Forest Inc. in the rehabilitation of Yanakie Garden. The same with the Monbulk Landcare Group, to increase biodiversity in Moores Road splitter; $10,000 again, and to increase biodiversity in Sassafras Creek; again, another $10,000.
For the Southern Dandenong Landcare Group, the Belgrade Rail Weed Eradication Project; $10,000 to Vicki Boyle. I have known Vicki for many years and, again, she has done amazing work.
For the Southern Ranges Environment Alliance, Gembrook Community Campaign; $10,000 to Merle Mathison. For the Southern Ranges Environment Alliance, Selby Biodiversity Biolink; $10,000 to Navi Valdes and her group.
For the Macclesfield Fire Brigade, fuel reduction and weed removal in Macclesfield; $15,000. Well done to the guys up there, especially Jess Merritt who put the application together.
For Selby Friends Group, Selby NCR Bushland; $15,000 to Jackie Glen and her group.
For Friends of Harbury, Land of the Lyrebird; $16,000 to Elizabeth Fraser.
For Monbulk Landcare Group, rehabilitation of 9 Holden Road; $19,000. Again, that was another project by Bill Incoll.
For Montrose Environmental Group, unified management of bushfire hazard and ecological assets at Bungalook Conservation Reserve, Kilsyth South, $22,400 to Dr Graeme Lorimer and his group. Thank you very much. Montrose is not in my electorate but it is at the base of the hills. I know that the member for Casey, Tony Smith, now the Speaker, is very keen on the project.
For the Sherbrooke Community School, Sherbrooke Community School Pest and Fire Reduction Program; $36,000. Denise Dempsey, your students are doing a fantastic job; they are leading by example.
For Cardinia Shire Council, Wattle Creek Reserve Restoration Project; $39,000. Marianne Sawyer and her group, well done.
For the Johns Hill Landcare Group, WEED CAP Cardinia Creeks, $41,160. Again, Karen Alexander has been heavily involved in that.
This is an interesting one: StopPitt, for the control of sweet pittosporum in the Dandenong Ranges, $41,335. To Jeff Walker, well done and congratulations. You have been so passionate about this.
For Friends of Baluk Willam Nature Conservation Reserve, $46,000. To Andrew Dilley and his team, well done.
For the Friends of Sassafras Creek; $47,270, to Jane Hollands and her crew for the removal of hazardous cypress, which is a fire danger. Also, another $47,677 to Friends of Sassafras Creek for other work in the headwaters.
For Holly Hill Community Fireguard Group, forest rehabilitation and fuel reduction at the headwaters of Dobson's Creek in Ferny Creek; $49,000.
For the Sherbrooke Lyrebird Survey Group, which will be looking at the lyrebirds in the forest there; $49,600 to Alex Maisey.
For the Southern Ranges Environment Alliance, $50,000. Thanks to Jean Blencowe and her group for everything they are doing on the north-west face of the Dandenong Ranges.
For the CFA in Belgrave South; to Ion Worrell, $95,000—that is a lot of money. They are going to make a fire-break 18 kilometres long on private and Crown land. This will reduce the fire risk in Belgrave South by 50 per cent.
The CEO of the Emerald Tourist Railway Board, John Robinson, is doing a fantastic job. They will receive $300,000. This is a major commitment but this is so important because it is a very important stretch of land but also we are now seeing over 350,000 tourists.
New applications will open in early January next year for another $1 million. Local groups, again, will be able to put in and well done to all those who received awards.
I rise today to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of women in the New South Wales Police Force. The anniversary marks a significant milestone for the force, which is celebrating the evolution of the role of women in policing in New South Wales since the introduction of our first female special constables in 1915. One hundred years ago, in 1915, the New South Wales Police Department placed advertisements for two female officers. Nearly 500 women applied for the positions. Two applicants, Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes, were chosen and became the first female officers in Australia. Lillian and Maude were required to sign an indemnity releasing the police department of any responsibility for their safety. They were also required to wear civilian clothes as they were not issued with a uniform. Their duties consisted of keeping young children off the streets and preventing truancy; attending to women, girls and children in the community who were particularly at risk; keeping an eye on the brothels; protecting women and girls in public parks and when leaving work in the evening; and assisting and enforcing pedestrian traffic. More crucially, however, Australia's first ever policewomen were not appointed as regular police officers but as special constables, which meant that they were not entitled to superannuation or pensions. In fact, up until 1965 female police bore all the responsibility for their financial future after retirement. Lillian Armstrong, for instance, retired after 33 years service in 1949, having reached the rank of Special Sergeant, First Class, and was awarded the King's Police and Fire Service Medal for distinguished service—the first woman in the British Empire to receive this distinction. Yet upon retirement she received no remuneration and was forced to live on her savings until the state government later granted her a special allowance.
It took half a century from when Lillian and Maude joined the force in 1915 for the New South Wales Police Force to cease to employ women police as special constables and for them to gain full status as officers in that force, thereby entitling them to superannuation and pension benefits. I am glad to say that in 2015 the culture and conditions for women in the New South Wales Police Force are completely unrecognisable from what they were 100 years ago.
Over the last 50 years in particular, there have been dramatic changes in the workplace to encourage more women to join the police force and to ensure the removal of inhibitors for women to work and be successful in all aspects of policing. If a person has the necessary determination and aptitude then there is no reason why they cannot work in any section of the New South Wales Police Force, irrespective of whether they are male or female.
At present the New South Wales Police Force has roughly 20,000 police officers, of which 35 per cent are female and 65 per cent are male. The proportion of women in the New South Wales Police Force is higher than most other law enforcement or emergency services agencies; it is higher than the proportion of women in the Army, which is 15 per cent, and higher than the proportion of women in the New South Wales Fire and Rescue workforce, which is less than five per cent. The New South Wales Police Force also has a number of high ranking female officers, including Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn APM, and Assistant Commissioner Carlene York, as well as 15 female superintendents and 112 inspectors.
To commemorate the remarkable contribution of women in policing over the last century, there have been a number of events, which kicked off with an expo at Tumbalong Park in Darling Harbour on 1 March showcasing to the public this history, present day policing technologies, and the forces' operational capacity. On 8 March the inaugural the New South Wales Women in Policing Baton Relay was launched on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, and it is presently touring the state, stopping off at all of the 76 local area commands, where a variety of community events have been organised.
Last week was Camden's turn to receive the baton. Although, unfortunately, I was unable to attend, due to parliament sitting, I am delighted to inform the House that the event was a remarkable success and enjoyed by all. The day started at 9.45 am at the old Camden police station on John Street in Camden, with Superintendent Doreen Cruickshank, the state's longest serving New South Wales police officer, making the opening address. Mayor of Camden Lara Symkowiak welcomed the baton to Camden, wishing it a safe passage, and Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas formally handed the baton to the first runners. Shortly afterwards the baton relay commenced, with a group of retired police women who had worked or lived in the Camden area carrying the baton down Argyle Street to Cowpasture Reserve. This group included Paula Daley, the first woman stationed at both Camden and Picton; Helen Kirton, who, incidentally, enlisted at the same time as Superintendent Cruickshank; Wendy Walsh; Renee Galiantis; Pauline Goonan; Esta McKay; Evy Messa and Virginia Mackie. I would like to say a special thanks to these ladies for taking the time to stop outside my office and take a photo, which I greatly appreciated receiving last week. I just wish I could have been there to join in the celebrations.
The baton relay was supported by ladies in historical uniforms from the seventies and eighties, which added to the excitement and colour of the occasion. The theme for the celebrations was 'Compassion, courage and strength'. The baton was escorted to Narellan Police Station where it was handed over to the commander of the Camden LAC, Superintendent Ward Hanson, his wife, Felicity, and current officers Maree Hamilton and Megan Young, who in turn handed it to Kerrie Wright, Lauren Rice and Cath Culbert, followed by Crime Prevention Officer Greg Louden and his wife, and the police dog handler, Sandra, as the baton relay followed its journey through Narellan town centre and on to Elyard Reserve, where a presentation was held.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Detective Inspector Jayne Doherty and all the staff at Camden LAC and Narellan LAC for the hard work you put in to make this event such a success. I would also like to congratulate and thank all the friends, families and members of the public who took part and showed their support for Macarthur's female police officers past and present—in particular, Paula, Helen, Wendy, Renee, Pauline, Esta and Virginia. The day was yours and I am delighted that you were able to be part of this historic occasion.
Finally, it is fantastic to see all the LACs across the states supporting the baton relay and acknowledging the wonderful contribution of our wonderful female officers. As a former New South Wales police officer I stand here proudly acknowledging the outstanding and invaluable contribution that women have provided to policing over the past 100 years and will continue to provide into the future.
I was not really planning to speak in this grievance debate tonight, but I thought I would turn my mind to an issue that I think is very important within our community, and that issue is immunisation. As members of parliament, we are often lobbied by groups that believe that immunisation should not be mandatory. They are people who feel that immunisations cause enormous side effects and that immunisation is the scourge of the world. I disagree very strongly with that. Immunisation is one of the factors that have led to longevity. It is something that has changed the face of our nation.
My grandfather contracted poliomyelitis. Because of the polio that he had suffered he was quite disabled for all of the time I knew him. Many of us here in this parliament have worked with people who, as they have gotten older, have suffered the late effects of polio, or post-polio syndrome, because they did not have access to the polio vaccination when they were younger. There is diphtheria, there is tetanus and there are all the childhood diseases that babies are immunised against. They are immunised against measles, which can be a fatal disease. The other disease that they are immunised against is chickenpox.
When I was young, chickenpox was very commonplace. Everyone in the school or the class tended to develop chickenpox. When I contracted chickenpox I brought it home and both my mother and sister ended up with chickenpox. For years it was thought to be not particularly harmful, just a minor irritant. Subsequently it has been found that if you contract chickenpox when you are young then you are very susceptible to shingles, and shingles is a very debilitating disease. I notice that the member for Ryan is in the chamber. She moved a motion about the new vaccination for shingles, Zostavax, that I was very pleased to speak on in the House.
It is now coming and we are nearly there. From November this year all people over the age of 70 will be eligible to receive the immunisation. That will be of enormous benefit to older people. It will lead to a reduction in hospitalisations. It will lead to a reduction in medical expenses. It will lead to a reduction in the level of disability that many older people have to live with as a result of contracting shingles. It is a double whammy when you look at it from an immunisation point of view. Now children are immunised against chicken pox, and people who were not immunised can now be immunised so they do not contract shingles. So it really shows the benefit of immunisation. I think that the shingles vaccine has an efficacy rate in the vicinity of 80 per cent. Feel free to correct me, Member for Ryan, if I have that figure incorrect.
So I would argue very strongly in this place that we should be supporting immunisation programs. Immunisation has changed the face of our nation, and the world for that matter. In countries like Pakistan polio still exists and there is a definite reluctance to allow immunisation. Part of the role that we need to play in countries such as Pakistan is to get out there and facilitate immunisation of people in those countries. I know Rotary has been very involved in immunisation throughout the world, and Save the Children Fund has been very active in Pakistan, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done at the social and cultural level as well.
Today I was very fortunate to go to a Medicines Australia lunch. There were some fantastic guest speakers. At that luncheon, the theme was: why adult immunisations are important to keep seniors fit and healthy. I have given you one example: shingles vaccination. But it was argued that in Australia pneumonia and influenza annually account for 2,719 deaths, and an enormous 82,067 hospitalisations. That is quite an impost on our health system and of course it is enormous for the people who actually are sick or lose their lives.
Older Australians are most affected: 56 per cent of the hospitalisations for pneumonia and 18 per cent of the hospitalisations for influenza are amongst those 65 and over. That amount of 56 per cent is quite phenomenal. This can be prevented by immunisation. Patients aged 65 to 84 have an average stay in hospital of six to seven days with pneumonia, and five to six days for influenza, compared to 3.3 days for all other hospitalisations. Once again, this can be prevented by immunisation—annual flu injections. We have injections for pneumonia. Research is being undertaken and it has shown that there are new vaccinations that are even more effective than the current vaccinations that are on the market at the moment.
One flu season alone can cost the New South Wales economy—and I am only talking New South Wales here; forgive me, Member for Ryan, a Queenslander—$482 million. Colds and flu are estimated to cost Australian companies more than $7 billion in lost time. That is an enormous cost to those companies and to our economy. The cost of influenza to the healthcare system is estimated at $115 million annually; $79 million of which is attributed to influenza in Australians aged 65 and over. Once again, that is emphasising the fact that immunisation should not stop when you are young. You really need to take it into adulthood, particularly when you get older: 343,000 Australians visit their GP for pneumonia each year, costing $20 million. Once again, that can be avoided.
My theme in this speech is: immunisation is important. It does not matter whether you are a baby, whether you are starting school or whether you are at those other important times in your life. The immunisation for cervical cancer is another good example of an immunisation that is outside that younger age group. So whether you are younger or whether you are in the years between being older, it is important. When you get older you cannot forget to be immunised, because immunisation saves lives, immunisation saves hospitalisation and immunisation is very cost-effective. (Time expired)
I am going to continue in the theme of the member for Shortland, who will be delighted with more good news from Queensland when it comes to science research. Earlier this year I rose in this chamber to lament the lack of funding available for translational research in Australia, known in the industry as the valley of death. In that speech, I highlighted some of the amazing research being undertaken in Australia and lamented the policy and financial barriers that prevent much of this promising research from being commercialised into new treatments and cures that will change lives. Sadly, those barriers still remain. However, tonight I bring to the chamber's attention some positive news regarding a new treatment for chronic pain developed by researchers at the University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan.
Just as the names Professor Ian Frazier and Gardasil are on everyone's mind, and just as Professor Mark Kendall and the Nanopatch bring great success and relief to many parts of the world, the new name on everyone's lips will be Professor Maree Smith. After 11 years of research, Professor Maree Smith and her team have recently experienced a tremendous success. Based on her research, UQ's commercialisation arm, UniQuest, founded a company called Spinifex Pharmaceuticals. That company has just been purchased by multinational firm Novartis for $260 million up-front—a deal that may be worth up to $1 billion. It is one of the largest venture capital success stories in Australian history. It dates back still to this century, when Maree Smith said, 'My God, it works.' Those were the four words that sprang and then stuck in Professor Smith's mind when she received the news in 2012 that her hypothesis on treating chronic pain, which she had come up with in 2003, had worked.
Dr Smith's drug is for people with neuropathic pain, which is a type of pain developed after a nerve injury. Unlike other chronic pain treatments, this drug works on a novel receptor called an AT2 receptor. Nerve injuries put pressure on sciatic nerves and the nerve fibres that feel the pressure and then fire off, constantly causing pain. This causes neoplastic changes in the spinal cord. Dr Smith's new drug shuts down this constant firing in the injured fibres. That is how it reduces pain. After the first proof of concept in a rat model generated at the end of 2004, UniQuest filed a provisional patent in May 2005, and on the basis of that they attracted venture capital to start up Spinifex Pharmaceuticals. The drug development journey is very long. Within Australia, over time—from mid-2005 to mid-2012—$20 million was raised for safety pharmacology and toxicology, as well as safety and tolerability studies.
The first clinical trial was in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia, a painful condition that can follow shingles, in August 2012. After that, Dr Smith said that they knew it worked. Spinifex then moved to America, raised a further $48 million—it is not easy to raise that sort of money in Australia—and did more clinical studies, mainly based in Australia. At the end of June this year, Spinifex was sold to Novartis for about $260 million, plus undisclosed clinical development and regulatory milestone payments. Final clinical trials will be done internationally by Novatis in approximately 10 different countries to get true research among differing populations. Dr Smith thinks it will be at least another two to three years of clinical trials before the drug is ready for approval from the regulatory bodies. In drug development terms, it is getting very close. Congratulations to Professor Maree Smith and her team.
On Saturday night I was at the Life Sciences Queensland inaugural Penelope Wensley AO oration. The guest speaker was the former ambassador to Australia from the United States of America, Jeffrey Bleich, who noted that, in fact, the first person to live to 150 has already been born. Therefore, more than ever, we need the sort of research that has been undertaken—particularly in Queensland—to support a population that is going to live that long. I want to pay tribute to Mario Pennisi and the team at Life Sciences Queensland, because they are absolutely relentless in promoting life sciences and this research, and they are putting Queensland and this research on the world map. Congratulations to everyone; it was a very special evening on Saturday night—more so because we could celebrate some of these great milestones.
As a small nation, our medical researchers face the additional challenges of a small population from which to draw trial participants and an undeveloped venture capital market. What this has meant in recent times is that, far too often, promising research has fallen by the wayside for no reason other than a lack of funding. Researchers tend to refer to such projects as having entered the valley of death. For this reason, medical research in Australia has reached a crucial time in its development.
Our basic research is world-class; we have an abundance of well-qualified researchers, established research institutes and highly regarded tertiary institutions. But our medical researchers have become victims of their own success. With so many devoted and talented scientists generating so much promising research, the competition for funding is fierce. Only around 15 per cent of last year's grant applications to the National Health and Medical Research Council were successful in receiving financial support. That is not to say that the other 85 per cent of the proposals were not worthy of funding; there was simply a finite amount of funding to be distributed. We are losing our best and brightest researchers, along with their research, to other nations—or, worse, from the industry entirely—because, as a nation, we are not doing enough to support them to develop their research from the laboratory to the market.
That is why the government's Medical Research Future Fund is so important. That is why the Treasurer, in his remarks, referred to it as a game-changer for Australia and for Australians. The coalition government is not prepared to sit idly by and let the status quo continue. With this fund, we are committed to taking swift and decisive action to ensure that medical research in Australia has a long, sustainable and successful future.
It is always a pleasure to open the newspaper and read about Australian medical researchers making discoveries that will change people's lives. For the good of this country, I want them to be Australian researchers based in Australia, at places such as the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland.
With the establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund, we have a historic opportunity to transform medical research in this country. We have a chance to end the brain drain of researchers heading overseas for want of local support. We have a chance to seize the skilled jobs and the flow-on effects to local industry generated by a vibrant medical research sector. With the establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund, in time we can do all of these things.
The acquisition of Spinifex Pharmaceuticals by Novartis is a great Australian medical research success story. It shows that, with a combination of the right idea, time, persistence and funding, Australian ideas and medical research can become international success stories. As I have said before, Professor Smith and her team are proof that we have the research talent here in Australia to achieve great things. What we need to do is to get government, the venture capital sector and the research community all pulling together in the same direction so that success stories such as that of Spinifex Pharmaceuticals are the norm and not the exception.
My sincere and genuine congratulations to Professor Maree Smith and her team, and to UniQuest and the University of Queensland. These success stories are going to continue to come out if we continue to support the medical research. We have the best talent and the best determination in the world. I look forward to many more great stories that I can present here in the parliament.
I think it is important at this moment in time in this country that I put on record the concerns that I have with the China free trade agreement that this government has negotiated. It is unlike any other free trade agreement that this country has entered into in the past, and I would just like to highlight a number of concerns that I have. They relate to jobs in this country.
First of all, I am concerned about the concessional 457 visa extension to semiskilled trades and vocations, the first under any free trade agreement. I am also concerned about labour market testing, which has been abandoned in this agreement. I am concerned that the mandatory skills assessment for safety has been removed in this agreement, and I am also concerned that there is an unreciprocated, generous holiday visa offering to 5,000 young Chinese—the backpacker visas that we hear about regularly in our media.
In more detail on the grievance that I have with this particular agreement, let's start with the first point I raised. The China free trade agreement includes 457 visas for semiskilled workers—that is, the sub-trade level—in the infrastructure facilitation arrangements of the China free trade agreement labour mobility package. Australia has never before committed to 457 visas for semiskilled workers like contractors, scaffolders, truck drivers or even office workers. In this FTA, this government will allow people to be brought in in those visa categories. Under this agreement, semiskilled Chinese workers will have the opportunity to come here and work in this country without there even being labour market testing to see if there is anybody locally who has those skills available and can apply for the job. This is a further problem that I have with the China free trade agreement.
The China free trade agreement has provided unprecedented provisions granting Chinese citizens new rights that other people on a 457 visa do not have. In this agreement, for the first time, a company applying for a 457 visa for a Chinese worker coming into this country does not have to have labour market testing, meaning it does not have to advertise locally to see if there is a local person available to do the job. This agreement says that, for somebody working in an office in my area of Bendigo, a company can go straight to a Chinese 457 worker before even advertising locally.
This is what has got people concerned in electorates around the country, particularly regional electorates. It is the fact that people can be brought here on a 457 visa not just in skilled but in semiskilled professions and now without labour market testing. This agreement is bringing forward changes that we have not seen in any other free trade agreement struck before by this government or this Commonwealth. In previous free trade agreements, this international obligation was restricted and limited to a defined category of FTAs. It did not extend to skilled workers entering the standard 457 visa program. This is another problem with this agreement. For the first time, it specifically references the 457 visa program.
Another problem with this agreement is the removal of the mandatory skills assessment for safety. This will not only put local jobs at risk but put Australian standards for safety at risk. A side letter to the China free trade agreement says that 'an integral part of the agreement' removes the mandatory 457 skills assessment for Chinese citizens in 10 skilled trades and commits Australia to removing these assessments for all other skilled trades listed within two to five years. So in 10 skilled trades, like our electricians, our plumbers and our diesel mechanics, the safety standards will go automatically on ratification of this agreement, and then for all other trades listed they will go within two to five years. If you are an electrician or other skilled tradesperson in this community, no wonder you are concerned about this agreement being ratified. The government has just sent the strongest signal possible that somebody who has been trained and has qualifications in another country can come into this country and work without meeting the same obligations or having the same certificates and qualifications that they do here. It is also alarming for consumers to think that you could call an electrician to come to your house and not know whether they have Australian qualifications and safety standards or those of another country.
The Abbott government has not produced a shred of evidence to justify revising this position and has probably caved to China's demands for this. Let's just be frank about it: China has been very good at negotiating a very good deal for it and its citizens. This government has failed. They have failed to negotiate a decent agreement for Australians and Australian jobs. The China free trade agreement, as I have mentioned, also includes up to 5,000, 462 visas, for young Chinese to come and live and work in Australia each year. We have not received the same reciprocal rights in cases where there are young Australians who want to go and work in China; we have not received the same opportunity for our citizens. Yet what we have seen in this agreement is: 5,000 young Chinese citizens are to have the opportunity to come and work here, in this country. It was said at a National Farmers Federation forum just last week that these people will come here to pick fruit and other produce. I have no doubt, though, that these people will also be applying for jobs—jobs in regional areas, such as in food processing and in meat works. This is already occurring in my electorate.
Let us just be clear about the facts and about what is going on in terms of jobs in this country and why it is the wrong time to be striking this agreement. Every day, jobs are disappearing. Unemployment remains high and is set to become worse. Youth unemployment in this country is at 13.5 per cent and as high as 20 per cent in some regional areas—including in my own electorate of Bendigo, where it is up to 17 per cent. There are more than 700,000 Australians out of work, and there are now 1.8 million temporary work visa holders already in this country. Before the China free trade agreement has come in, we already have 1.8 million people in this country on temporary work visas.
The impact has been stark. In my own area, as I have mentioned, we have a company called KR Castlemaine, which makes bacon and smallgoods. They are quite open about the fact that they use overseas temporary workers. At the moment they are young Taiwanese, but under this agreement they could be young Chinese. They are quite open about the fact that because they work for a subcontractor they are paid the award rate, which is $4 an hour less than Australian workers on the collective agreement would be paid. Companies are not hiding the fact that they will be able to use subcontractors, who engage these temporary workers, to pay these guest workers less than Australian workers.
This is the wrong time to be striking such a free trade agreement. We have high unemployment and it is only increasing. We have a youth jobs crisis, and this government has no plan; instead, they are very quick to go to other countries and invite those countries' young workers to come here. They are deliberately pitting them against young Australian workers.
We are not ready for free trade—and particularly not for this agreement. Day after day there are media reports about the exploitation being experienced by these guest workers. The Fair Work Ombudsman has released several reports into the problems with the 457 visa program. A recent report found that one in five people that they audited had been underpaid or were not being paid in the job that they were employed to come here for. Yet we have not seen an attempt from this government to clean up the problems in the temporary work visas space. Instead, they have dumped this agreement on Australians and said, 'It is a good deal.' It is far from a good deal. The government is not ready to bring in an agreement like this. There are not the proper safeguards in place to protect Australian jobs. Furthermore, there are not the proper safeguards to protect the guest workers who they hoped to bring here on these visas.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:44