The following ministerial responses to petitions have been received:
The last time I addressed the House following the presentation of petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I commented on the role and the responsibilities of members physically presenting petitions to the House. Today I will expand on members' lesser recognised roles and involvement in the petitioning process, irrespective of whether they present a petition in the process or not.
Today's announcement of two petitions belies the actual number of in-order petitions assessed by the committee in the last sitting week. There were just as many petitions agreed to be presented by members in one of their speaking opportunities. However, the numbers do not usually go this way. Over the course of a year the bulk of petitions received by the committee are presented by the chair, a presentation arrangement which is provided for in the standing orders. But this does not necessarily mean there hasn't been a member involved in the process.
Members play a key role in the House petitioning process. Members' electorate offices are often the first port of call of a local citizen trying to negotiate a bureaucratic maze, air a grievance, or simply ask about government administration processes or regulations. Members' offices provide a link between their local people and the information people need to prepare a valid petition to the House.
Not all petitioners request their local member to present a petition—for a variety of reasons, one being that the chair's presentation has a known time frame after committee assessment, which is attractive to some. This means that petitions presented by the chair have, more often than not, been received after a petitioner has liaised with a member's office.
Members provide a direct and very accessible link between the House of Representatives and the citizens in the communities they represent. The ability to come in direct contact with a member, and/or the staff in a member's office, becomes increasingly attractive as citizens everywhere are directed more and more towards self-service communication and transactions.
The general decline in 'real' person-to-person interaction is simultaneously happening in a world where the average 'Australian in the street' has significantly more access to information (be it fact or fiction). The majority of Australians have internet access at home and/or mobile internet access. This has enabled some citizens to navigate government information far more easily and to work independently towards finding a solution to their concerns.
For others, however, the ability to access or locate information online may be hindered. They may prefer a more traditional method of checking facts and gathering information. They may simply prefer face-to-face contact. This means that, although the Petitions Committee provides useful online resources and can assist through telephone, email and mail support, members' electorate offices may be the first, and sometimes only, place that citizens will contact when they are drawing up their petition. It is often the first place a petitioner attends after they have already collected signatures on a petition prepared with no reference to House rules.
The committee has found, as you would expect, that members generally have a sincere, dedicated attitude to petitioning. Many of their offices retain direct liaison with petitioners from start to finish. They may forward inquiries to the committee secretariat on behalf of a prospective petitioner and act as the conduit for suggestions on draft petitions. Some members provide a collection point for a petition and deliver the finished petition to Parliament House. This happens regularly.
However, an important point to note is that a member of the House of Representatives, as per standing order 205(c), is unable to actually be a principal petitioner, and they cannot sign a petition either. This ensures the spirit of petitioning is maintained—that petitioning is undertaken by citizens to their elected representatives. This rule also maintains the independence of members who may be asked to assist petitioners with the requirements of petitioning, or to deliver a petition to the Petitions Committee.
In conclusion, members have an important role to play in assisting petitioners to prepare their petitions in compliance with House requirements. They may assist a petitioner to tailor their petition terms so as to meet standing order requirements; they may accept delivery of petitions; and they may arrange for their delivery to the House. However, we expect the ownership of the petition, and the signature collection process, to remain with the principal petitioner. Thank you.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into financial related crime.
On 5 March 2014, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement initiated an inquiry on financial related crime.
The inquiry's terms of reference were particularly focused on current Commonwealth law enforcement agency legislation and administrative arrangements that target serious and organised financial related crime, including money laundering and identity fraud. The committee's report examines numerous issues in relation to financial related crime and contains 14 recommendations. I was not chair of the committee at the time the report was handed down, and I congratulate the past committee chairman, the member for Forde, and also the deputy chairman, a Labor Tasmanian senator, Lisa Singh.
One issue that came up particularly in the committee's inquiry was that of what has been known as de-banking in the remittance industry. Firstly, we have a home remittance industry in this country. There is $30 billion. That is money transferred in and out of Australia under the home remittance industry. In fact, the World Bank figures show that in 2014 a total of US$16 billion was transferred by people working in Australia either on visas or as permanent citizens to people overseas. We should consider this as a form of foreign aid. This is money generated by the Australian economy that gets transferred to less fortunate economies than ours to help people in those economies. This amount from 2014 was in excess of $20 billion. This is more than four times government foreign aid. This is one of the highest amounts per capita in the world. So, if we are looking at foreign aid, we must include that amount of wealth created in Australia and transferred by private individuals to overseas.
But the real concern is what the banks are actually doing. Firstly, there has been an industry set up of small businesses organising to remit money to overseas on behalf of Australian citizens, Australian residents and visa holders. The reason why it is being done by small business and not the big banks is simply that these small businesses are doing it more efficiently and they were able to do it more cost-effectively. But what has happened is that the banks have used the terms in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act as a reason to close those accounts down. So what we have seen is at least 400 small businesses in this industry get letters from their bank saying: 'We no longer want you as a customer. Your account is now closed.' These businesses are legitimate business, they are highly regulated by AUSTRAC, they pay significant compliance fees and they are under significant compliance regulation. Yet we have regulation with the banks that is closing these people down and putting them out of business when they have a completely legitimate business model.
Mr Speaker, you may think that perhaps the banks are closing them down for legitimate reasons. But what we need to understand is the reason why the banks do not have any of this business: they cannot compete with these more efficient small businesses. In fact, if you go to transfer money overseas from a bank they will charge you a margin averaging about five per cent of the difference of the currency exchange rates plus a fee of around $30. Because these small businesses are more efficient, they do that transfer without any fee and only charge a margin of less than one per cent. So, by closing down this industry of $10 billion worth of money transfers from small businesses, the banks stand to profit by $2.5 billion in fees and an extra $500 million in remittance costs.
The ACCC have looked at this. The ACCC, firstly, have only given it a very superficial look. It goes to the heart of our competition laws and also to the heart of fairness. We cannot, in this place, allow legislation to come in that wipes out 400 small businesses that are acting completely legitimately. We need to look to do something about this, to enable these people to continue with their business.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39 the debate is adjourned. The resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
At the request of the member for Kennedy, I fix the next sitting as the day for presenting the Trade Marks Amendment (Iconic Symbols of National Identity) Bill 2015.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) National Stroke Week:
(i) will run this year from 14 to 20 September; and
(ii) is about raising awareness to prevent stroke in Australia; and
(b) the National Stroke Foundation encourages all Australians to:
(i) be aware of what stroke is, how to recognise a stroke and what to do;
(ii) live healthy to reduce the risk of stroke; and
(iii) get a regular health check;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) launch in June 2015 by the Minister for Health of the Acute Stroke Clinical Care Standard; and
(b) bi-partisan work done by past governments in the area of stroke; and
(3) notes the requirement for greater awareness and promotion of the prevention of stroke within the Australian community.
The week from 14 to 20 September is National Stroke Week, organised by the National Stroke Foundation. The importance of this being a national event demonstrates how significant stroke has become. Stroke is Australia's second biggest killer, after coronary heart disease, and is a leading cause of disability. With one in six people expected to have a stroke in their lifetime, it is even more devastating to learn that 65 per cent of people living with stroke also suffer a disability that impedes their capacity to carry out daily functions. It is estimated over 50,000 new stroke occurrences happen nationally every year. As of 2014, stroke has been registered as claiming more female victims than breast cancer and more male victims than prostate cancer. In Australia, a stroke occurs every 10 minutes. This year, 12,000 people will tragically lose their lives from stroke, with two thirds of survivors being disabled as a result.
Whilst any life lost to stroke is one too many, the unseen aspect of stroke has a much broader impact. The National Stroke Foundation estimates that caring for over 440,000 survivors of stroke costs the Australian economy $5 billion per year. The 2015 Intergenerational report has painted a clear picture of the challenges facing an ageing Australian population. It is apparent that with the increase in our ageing population the number of strokes annually is expected to exceed 130,000.
However, the real tragedy for stroke victims is the sudden onset of the incident. An example of this devastation can be the realisation that retirement plans of working-age victims are often abandoned given the state of disability that most stroke survivors are left in. In addition, the family budget is often thrown into disarray if the only option is care provided by a spouse. The economic impact in this case is far reaching, with at least two lives having been suddenly and dramatically changed.
In June of this year, the Minister for Health, the Hon Sussan Ley, launched a new clinical care standard, focusing on the early assessment and management of patients with stroke. This clinical care standard will ensure that, regardless of where a patient of stroke presents for assessment, they will be cared for using the best possible treatment.
In my electorate of Dobell there are 1,792 men and 1,515 women living with the aftermath of stroke. As far as statistics for new stroke occurrences go, there are approximately 210 males and 198 women, totalling over 400 new strokes each year. This number is expected to more than double by 2050. As the Central Coast population increases and our ageing population grows, this presents a challenge to our local health and support services.
Recently, I met with Brenda Booth, a member of the National Stroke Foundation Consumer Council, and stroke advocate Jackie Galbraith to discuss the impact of stroke and current support services on the Central Coast. The Central Coast Local Health District, which includes both Gosford and Wyong hospitals, is ranked seventh in New South Wales for the number of strokes, with over 1,000 stroke presentations in the 2014-15 financial year. Treatment of stroke on the Central Coast has been well resourced and managed. The Central Coast has a community neurological support service, with specialist treatment available. The Central Coast Local Health District has taken further steps to address stroke in the establishment of a TIA clinic to address the early signs of stroke. This clinic is vital because if a mini stroke is not treated properly the risk of stroke is significant.
Both Brenda and Jackie spoke with immense passion and knowledge. I wish to thank them for their time and efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work with them in the future to raise awareness of stroke and its impacts on the community. Amongst the things discussed with Brenda and Jackie were the all-important warning signs and a term referred to as the FAST test commonly used to determine whether or not someone is experiencing a stroke. FAST is an acronym for a test which prompts bystanders to look for certain indicators—that is, observing the potential victim's face, arms and speech, and not wasting time.
I acknowledge the work undertaken by people such as Brenda and Jackie and their colleagues at the National Stroke Foundation, and I thank all those involved in helping stroke victims for their tireless efforts. It is their passion and dedication that make the community of Dobell and the Central Coast fortunate to have advocates such as these to create awareness and provide information regarding this important issue.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. Next week is National Stroke Week. The second week in September is always National Stroke Week. The purpose of that is to raise awareness about stroke, the prevalence of it in Australia and the recognition and prevention of stroke.
There are two types of stroke: there is stroke that is caused by a bleed in the brain and there is a stroke that is caused by a blockage. The treatment for those strokes is very different. There has been a lot of research into stroke undertaken. One of the leading researchers in this area is Professor Chris Levi at the Hunter Medical Research Institute. He was instrumental in the development of the stroke buster—the blood-busting drug that if administered within 4½ hours of when a person has a stroke, they can make an almost full recovery. That is where the time factor comes in—if you respond quickly, the damage that is caused by a stroke is minimised.
As the member for Dobell said, stroke is very prevalent in our community. It is one of the leading causes of disability and it remains the second-biggest killer in Australia. One in six people will have a stroke within their lifetime and over 60,000 people will suffer new or reoccurring strokes each year. The risk of stroke is influenced by a number of factors beyond our control—that is, age, gender and family history—but there are factors that we can control. I encourage people to look at their behaviours and their lifestyle issues, and make a point of trying to limit their chance of having a stroke—things such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and drinking too much. Every Australian needs to know their stroke risk factors. Knowing your personal risk factors, being physically active regularly and exercising regularly, thinking about what you are eating, eating healthily and having a very healthy diet, limiting consumption of alcohol and knowing the FAST symptoms—face, arms, speech and the time factor—help you avoid stroke.
Last Friday I had a seniors' forum. One of the speakers there was Judy Webb-Ryall, who is involved with Stroke and Disability Information Hunter Inc. She went through all of the issues and talked to the 100 people that were there about what they could do to limit their risk factors and what they should do if they suspect that they are having a stroke. The big message comes back to that time factor: do not sit, do not wait, do not think, 'It'll go away.' Call an ambulance. You are better off going to hospital and finding out that you have nothing to worry about than staying at home and ending up with permanent disability. A stroke is always a medical emergency. Recognise the signs of stroke. Stroke is not a heart attack; it is when the supply to the brain is suddenly interrupted by either a bleed or a blockage. Some strokes are fatal, while others cause permanent or temporary damage. The longer a stroke remains untreated, the greater the chance of there being some sort of residual damage.
One of the best works that I have seen on stroke was one that was conducted by Deloitte Access, the Stroke in Australia: no postcode untouchedreport. I think the member for Dobell got some of the information she referred to from that. It emphasises the cost of stroke to our community. I end by saying: remember FAST—Face, Arms, Speech and Time. If you think you are having a stroke, act. It is a medical emergency.
I rise to support the member for Dobell's motion regarding National Stroke Week. In doing so, I commend both the member for Dobell, for moving this private member's motion, and the National Stroke Foundation, for their ongoing work to raise awareness of the symptoms and treatments for stroke. Strokes can occur in all age groups and among people at all levels of fitness. However, the risk of stroke does rise with age. It is more common in men and in people with a family history of stroke. There are also certain lifestyle factors that lead to an increased risk of stroke. For instance, high cholesterol, cigarette smoking, obesity, poor diet, a lack of exercise and drinking large amounts of alcohol can all contribute to an increased risk. However, the largest preventable risk factor for stroke is high blood pressure.
The Stroke Foundation recommends that blood pressure be controlled through regular exercise and maintaining a healthy weight, and also through medication if necessary. For people who are at risk, the Stroke Foundation recommends regular check-ups and monitoring. Treatment will vary depending on the type of stroke experienced, but the most important factor is time. The sooner you can respond and start treating a stroke, the sooner you will improve the chance of survival and successful rehabilitation.
To get the message across to all Australians, the National Stroke Foundation recommends the FAST test as the best way to recognize common signs of stroke. As the member for Dobell pointed out, FAST is an easy-to-remember acronym that stands for Face, Arms, Speech and Time. When examining a person for signs of stroke, they recommend you should firstly observe their face: has their mouth dropped? Secondly, their arms: can they lift both arms? Thirdly, their speech: is their speech slurred? Do they understand you? And, finally, time: act quickly and call 000 if any of these symptoms are present. The FAST method is incorporated into the new Acute Stroke Clinical Care Standard, released by Minister Ley in June this year. The standard sets out a clear process that clinicians should follow when assessing and treating patients suspected of stroke, and it is a sign that the government is serious about ensuring stroke patients are treated safely and effectively.
Indeed, stroke is so prevalent that most of us will know of a colleague, friend or family member who has suffered a stroke. In my electorate of Ryan alone, on 2014 figures, there are 2,553 people who are still alive despite having suffered a stroke. While most are aged over 70, 413—or more than 15 per cent—are aged under 55. Stroke awareness will only become more important in the years to come. There were 295 strokes in Ryan in 2014. However, with the ageing of the population and an increased prevalence of some lifestyle factors, that number is expected to more than double to 660 by 2050.
But there may be good news on the horizon. Given the increasing public health challenge posed by stroke, there is significant research currently underway into new treatment methods that may revolutionise the way we treat stroke in future. A good example is the research being undertaken by the Queensland Brain Institute, located at the University of Queensland, in my electorate of Ryan. There, researchers have had some early success in the study of brain damage caused by strokes—news of which I shared with the House earlier this year. Researchers have discovered that the worst damage to the brain is often not caused by the stroke itself but by what happens to the brain afterwards, when it is trying to repair itself. During this process, blood clots can form in the brain that can then cause the inflammation that results in brain damage. Scientists at the Queensland Brain Institute have successfully located a molecule that causes the damaging inflammation.
Studies in mice have shown that it is possible to inhibit this molecule using a drug known as CAL-101. This is an exciting new discovery that if proven in humans could lead to new treatments that dramatically reduce the severity of brain damage caused by incidences of stroke, aiding rehabilitation and long-term recovery. This again reinforces the importance of time. Strokes, when recognized early, are far more treatable and are far less likely to cause long-term damage. If we can achieve one thing this week, it would be to encourage more Australians to pay attention to the symptoms of stroke and, if necessary, to seek treatment immediately.
Once again I commend the National Stroke Foundation for their campaign and encourage all Australians to familiarise themselves with the FAST method. One day it may just save a life.
There is one chance in eight million of winning the lotto, one chance in one million of being eaten by a crocodile whilst visiting the Northern Territory, one chance in 660,000 of winning an Olympic gold medal, one chance in 12½ thousand of getting a hole in one, one chance in 3,000 of being struck by lightning in your lifetime and one chance in six of having a stroke. In 2012 about 50,000 Australians had a stroke—that is one person every 10 minutes.
One of those people was an inspiring young man named Luke Webb. I met him last year when he cycled 108 kilometres from the Big Merino in Goulburn to the steps of Parliament House here in Canberra. He rode for six hours to give me a petition signed by 11,000 people as part of the National Stroke Foundation's Fight Stroke campaign. It was not easy, but it was nothing compared to what Luke had already been through. He is now one of 440,000 stroke survivors in Australia.
Many Australians survive stroke, but two-thirds need assistance afterwards to carry out their daily lives. The same number suffer a disability that will cut short their working lives. Up to one-third suffer depression. Stroke also kills—one in three people who have a stroke will die within a year. It is the second-biggest killer in Australia after heart disease. It kills more women than breast cancer and more men than prostate cancer.
Despite advances in stroke treatment and the important work done by the National Stroke Foundation, we are still short of best practice care in Australia. That is why it is so important to raise awareness of stroke, the signs of stroke and stroke prevention. Some of the signs include facial weakness, arm weakness and difficulty with speech. Some of the ways to help prevent it include losing weight, not smoking, exercising more and lowering your blood pressure. All of these things can help, but stroke can still happen to anyone.
Luke was only 20 when it happened to him. His stroke was triggered by a plane trip where he got deep vein thrombosis. To raise awareness he has already ridden his bike to Canberra, and now he is writing a short film about the immediate after-effects of stroke and the impact it can have on a young person, especially on people who leave hospital without a care plan or proper rehab. He is hoping to produce this film and use it as a tool to spread awareness and put pressure on those who can make a difference—people like us. Like Luke, I urge the government and I urge the parliament to do more to fight stroke.
Next week is National Stroke Week. Each year, as part of National Stroke Week, the National Stroke Foundation runs more than 3,000 activities across the country. Activities range from awareness morning teas to displays and talks, personal and team challenges, and health checks. Although some of the risk factors for stroke cannot be controlled—things like age, gender and family history—as I said earlier, there are some things that we can do to lower the risk of suffering a stroke. One of the most important of these is checking and managing our blood pressure. So I urge everybody to get a check-up next week. Talk to your doctor and check your blood pressure. Talk to your friends and encourage them to go to the doctor as well, encourage them to get a check-up and encourage them to check their blood pressure. To my fellow MPs, I encourage you to get involved in the campaign and help to spread the word, because we can and we should be doing better.
I rise to contribute to this worthwhile motion. I thank the member for Dobell for initiating this motion, as well other members of the House for their contributions. We just heard from the member for Blaxland about Luke, the 20-year-old that suffered a stroke. That is indicative of some of the heartbreak and the challenges that strokes cause in our society. National Stroke Week is a fantastic initiative to help raise awareness and try to prevent stroke in Australia, running from 14 to 20 September. I, like many others, know a number of people who have suffered from a stroke, so I understand the difficulties faced by the many in our community who have survived this ordeal.
We have heard some enlightening facts already, including that one in six people will have a stroke in their lifetime. Stroke is one of Australia's biggest killers and a leading cause of disability. In 2015 there will be more than 50,000 new and recurrent strokes. That is 1,000 strokes every week or one stroke every 10 minutes—some really frightening statistics. We have also heard that stroke kills more women than breast cancer and more men than prostate cancer, and we know how serious these cancers are in our society and how they affect so many people, including people that we know. National Stroke Week is a great initiative by the National Stroke Foundation and is designed to encourage all Australians to be aware of what stroke is, how to recognise a stroke and, importantly, what to do, as well as to live healthily and to get regular health checks to reduce the rise and chances of stroke.
The federal government acknowledges how a stroke can impact on someone and devastate the lives of the people around them. Earlier this year the government launched the Acute Stroke Clinical Care Standard, which is designed to help treat stroke early, prevent recurrences of stroke and lead to much better outcomes for patients and their carers. The federal government also knows the need for greater awareness and promotion of the prevention of stroke within the Australian community.
However, in my community in South Australia, the state government is making life more difficult for the people of Hindmarsh in the western suburbs to receive emergency treatment when suffering from a stroke. The Transforming Health plan for the Weatherill government includes shutting parts of hospitals and making cuts to emergency departments, which is a concern. This includes cuts to the services provided at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital emergency department. People experiencing life-threatening emergencies, such as a stroke, will no longer be able to be treated at the QEH, a great hospital not far from my electorate. As you can imagine, this has caused some grave concern in the community. Demographically, Hindmarsh is one of the oldest electorates in the nation. Many who live in the area rely on the QEH as their major hospital, including Mrs Barb Coombe of West Lakes Shore, who was one of the many concerned residents who wrote to me. She said that her husband has recently had health issues and he relied on the services provided by the QEH emergency department. She writes:
Dear Mr Williams,
I have read your newsletter and thank you.
Why I am writing to you is about our QEH.
My husband has always gone to the QEH having had a few strokes & heart attacks. Will he still go there or to the Royal Adelaide Hospital?
I don't drive and Ted is 85 years old and change does not go down well with him.
Kind regards,
Barb Coombe.
Mrs Coombe is rightly concerned that the planned cuts to the QEH will have a negative impact on her and her husband. Patients like Mrs Coombe's husband will now be taken to an alternative hospital like the RAH, which is a greater distance away from West Lakes. The greater distance amounts to longer time to receive medical attention, and we all know that for strokes and heart attacks every second counts. Many of my constituents, including me, are deeply concerned about the extra travel time and distance if people suffering life-threatening emergencies such as stroke have to travel to alternative hospitals such as the RAH.
I have visited the Queen Elizabeth and met with health professionals. In my conversations with health professionals, I am informed over 1,000 patients suffering a heart attack or stroke are treated every year at the QEH. The state government's response is to buy new ambulances and have more paramedics. But, although paramedics do a great job, strokes are best treated in emergency departments, and I believe this policy will put extra stress on the already stretched South Australian public health system. I strongly object to the state government's decision to cut services at the QEH. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be listening to the people's concerns.
In closing, I congratulate the National Stroke Foundation on its efforts. I am a strong supporter of the Medical Research Future Fund. This is a game-changing initiative which can only help efforts to treat various health conditions and diseases. I congratulate the Minister for Health on the launch of the Acute Stroke Clinical Care Standard in June this year to help us address stroke.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important motion brought here before the House today by the member for Dobell. I have often spoken in this place about the chronic health issues prevalent in my electorate of Calwell—health problems that disproportionately affect people from lower socioeconomic and non-English-speaking backgrounds. Ensuring and advocating for adequate access to the very important health information that is available for my constituents who do not speak English is, of course, one of my main concerns, and so it is with the important information and awareness-raising programs related to stroke.
Stroke is a major health issue in our community that potentially affects anyone at any time. It is not an old person's illness. It does not discriminate on the basis of postcode, gender, or ethnicity. It can pretty much happen to anyone at any time, and I want to applaud the efforts of the National Stroke Foundation in raising awareness though their annual Stroke Week, which takes place this month, September. I want to welcome them here to the parliament and commend them for the excellent work they do, work that is essential to saving lives in our community. The National Stroke Foundation is a national not-for-profit organisation that works with stroke survivors, carers, health professionals, government and the public to reduce the impact of stroke on the Australian community. Its mission is to be a voice of stroke prevention in Australia.
A stroke happens when blood supply to the brain is interrupted. Blood, as we know, is carried to the brain by arteries. It contains oxygen and important nutrients for your brain cells. Blood may be interrupted or stop moving through an artery because the artery is blocked or because the artery bursts. When brain cells do not get enough oxygen or nutrients, they die. Every stroke is different. Each person affected by stroke will have different problems and different needs. Nevertheless, raising awareness is critical to recognising the symptoms of a stroke so that immediate medical attention can be sought, which in turn maximises the chances for survival and recovery.
Stroke is one of Australia's biggest killers and the leading cause for disability. One in six people will have a stroke in their lifetime. This means that a person who has a stroke is likely to be someone we know: our partner, sister, brother, husband, wife, daughter, father, friend or colleague—in fact, people who are our constituents. Behind this statistic are real lives and real people.
In 2015 there will be more than 50,000 new and recurrent strokes. That is 1,000 strokes every week or one stroke every 10 minutes. In 2012 there were nearly 130,000 Australian stroke survivors, or 30 per cent of stroke survivors, under the age of 65 in the community. In 2012 there were over 420,000 people living with the effects of stroke, and 30 per cent of these people were of working age. In 2015 there will be almost 440,000 people living with the effects of stroke. This is predicted to increase to some 709,000 by the year 2032. Stroke kills more women than breast cancer and more men than prostate cancer. Sixty-five per cent of those living with stroke also suffer a disability that impedes their ability to carry out daily living activities unassisted. In 2012, the financial cost of stroke in Australia was estimated to be $5 billion. The estimate of the burden of disease cost at $49.3 billion is comparable to the $41 billion burden of disease cost that Deloitte Access Economics estimated for anxiety and depression in 2012.
Surviving a stroke means knowing the symptoms and acting quickly. My colleagues have repeatedly made that point today. Many stroke victims will also be people who will not ordinarily be considered an obvious risk of having a stroke. They will be younger than 50 and physically fit. They may run, cycle, swim or go regularly to the gym. They may not necessarily be overweight and they may not smoke. It is essential to know that you do not have to fit a typical risk profile in order to be a stroke victim. The important and critical message is that a stroke can happen to anyone at any time.
In raising awareness, it is important to emphasise that the best chance of surviving and recovering from a stroke is to get medical attention immediately or as soon as is possible because chances of maximising recovery depends on the time taken to get to a hospital. It is very important to stress this point. I want to support and commend this motion today because we are making a contribution to saving lives.
Thank you to the member for Dobell for raising this important issue on stroke awareness. It is estimated that 440,000 Australians live with the effects of stroke, two-thirds of whom suffer a disability that impedes their ability to carry out daily-living activities. A stroke occurs when the blood supply to the brain is restricted either through a blockage or bleeding. This cuts off the supply of oxygen to the brain causing damage to the affected tissue. A stroke may cause paralysis, speech impairment, loss of memory and reasoning ability, coma or death. A stroke can happen to anyone. One in six people will have a stroke in their lifetime. It does not discriminate.
My father suffered a stroke when he watching his favourite son compete in tennis. His favourite son has two sisters—there is no other son. This actually stopped him from playing tennis. He took up playing golf and he was very proud of his handicap of about 30, which he called his stroke handicap. Long after he had recovered, he still played off that handicap to take money off the unsuspecting. Rod Laver had a stroke. Rod is a very shy man, uncomfortable with his celebrity status. When doing a television interview he was clearly uncomfortable with, his blood pressure was raised and he suffered a stroke. Australia paused until he recovered.
Aside from the personal cost, stroke costs the Australian economy around $5 billion each year, including $3 billion in lost productivity and $1 billion in lost wages. This motion acknowledges the positive contribution by the National Stroke Foundation to prevent stroke through campaigns like National Stroke Week, which will be observed across the country next week. I am proud to support this motion and call upon this House to recognise the steps we, and all Australians, can take to reduce the negative impact stroke has on our economy and our community.
As the member for Bennelong, I am fortunate to represent the region that houses the majority of Australia's innovative pharmaceutical companies. This means I have the opportunity to observe firsthand the evolution of treatments for life-threatening conditions. Stroke treatment is a particularly good news story about the incredible impact on society of investing in health research. In the 1950s a drug called Warfarin was approved by the medical community to treat stroke due to its effectiveness as a blood thinner. Warfarin was initially marketed during the Second World War as rat poison. Despite this, it became one of the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulants.
In recent years, new breakthrough medicines called new oral anticoagulants have been invented to help prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. In particular, I was involved in the campaign for Pradaxa, which is produced by Bennelong's Boehringer Ingelheim, to be listed on the PBS and therefore available to Australian stroke patients at a heavily subsidised price. Unfortunately for those patients, the previous government delayed this decision by 2½ years after the PBAC had approved the drug's listing. Through this time, I was amazed at the incredible generosity of Boehringer Ingelheim, led by managing director Wes Cook, in offering the medicine on a compassionate program to hundreds if not thousands of patients. At a Parliamentary Friends of Medicine event I hosted in 2012 I was privileged to meet some of these patients, hear their stories and see the genuine appreciation they had for Boehringer Ingelheim and their compassionate program. Finally listed on the PBS in 2012, new oral anticoagulants like Pradaxa and other similar medicines produced by Bayer and BMS Pfizer have helped prevent an estimated 60,000 strokes.
In 2015, there will be more than 50,000 new and recurrent stroke. That is 1,000 strokes every week, or one stroke every 10 minutes. Australia is home to some of the world's leading stroke researchers, and some amazing work is being done around the country as we speak on innovative ways to help treat stroke and to prevent long-lasting disability and death. I therefore add my voice to this motion from the member for Dobell and extend my support and gratitude to organisations like the National Stroke Foundation for their efforts to raise awareness of the importance of stroke prevention.
I thank the member for Dobell for bringing this motion to the House. It is of course National Stroke Week next week, a very important awareness-raising exercise about the perils and risks of stroke and, obviously, the importance of living a healthy lifestyle and getting regular health checks.
Probably the most important message that this parliament can give people is the FAST test. FAST stands for: face—check the face and if the mouth has drooped; arms—can they lift both arms; speech—is their speech slurred and do they understand you; and time. Time is critical. If you see any of those signs, you should call 000 straightaway. Some of the other signs of stroke might be weakness; numbness or paralysis of the face, arm or leg on either or both sides of the body; difficulty speaking or understanding; dizziness, loss of balance or an unexplained fall; loss of vision, sudden blurring or decreased vision in one or both eyes. These are important signs. We should be aware of them and we should make our communities aware of them, because stroke is an extraordinarily serious disease for Australia.
There are some 40,000 to 48,000 stroke incidents occurring every year in Australia—one every 11 to 13 minutes. The vast majority of these are first-ever stroke, and of those who have reported a stroke 80 per cent were 60 years or older. That said—as the member for Blaxland has so eloquently told the House—it does occur to younger people as well. It is estimated that stroke is responsible for about two per cent of direct healthcare costs in Australia. The estimated lifetime cost of stroke is some $2.14 billion per annum, and the cost of informal care from families and friends is estimated to be $21.7 million in the first year after a stroke.
It is clear that in South Australia we have had some success in reducing the incidence of stroke in the last few years, but it is still the second-leading cause of disease burden after heart disease. The cost of lost productivity and other costs to the community and families is extraordinary. I was interested to hear the member for Hindmarsh talk about the Transforming Health program and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital does have, I think, a very hallowed view in the community's mind, and I understand that. But I actually had to take a family member there a couple of months ago and I had to sit in emergency for about four or five hours. The family member was later admitted. I can tell you that that hospital, as a building, is pretty old and worn out. The nurses and the doctors work extraordinarily hard in facilities that are really not up to scratch. That is one of the reasons why the South Australian government is building new hospitals in South Australia as part of the Transforming Health plan. It is very important that the community understand this. It is much better to go that extra distance to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital—a hospital which is more efficient, will have more doctors and nurses more freely available and will have a dedicated stroke unit—than to go to a hospital that is not going to give you the best treatment of those out there.
It is very important that people understand that the Transforming Health program aims to give better care. One of the areas is the RAH, but the Lyell McEwin and Flinders hospitals are also having dedicated stroke units put in them. You are better off going to a dedicated stroke unit, which has doctors and nurses who do this all day long and have the degree of speciality and technique to give you the best possible treatment. That is the aim behind the Transforming Health plan. It is understandable that people might have concerns about that, but we should not indulge ourselves in a fit of nostalgia about old hospitals, because they are old. Old hospitals can cost people their lives; new hospitals and new facilities save people's lives. So the member for Hindmarsh, with all due respect for him, should remember that when he is running his campaigns.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) places on the record that:
(a) the National Broadband Network (NBN) is rolling out too slowly under the current Government, and there are many difficulties being faced by constituents who are trying to access and connect to the NBN;
(b) areas without the NBN are facing significant obstacles in accessing internet services, including ADSL and wireless;
(c) Australians are being left in the dark by this Government about when they will have access to the NBN, with some areas being removed from the NBN roll out map without explanation and with no information forthcoming; and
(d) the Government's second rate NBN will not be sufficient to meet future demand, and will need to be upgraded in the future at great cost; and
(2) recognises that access to the NBN is a necessity for all Australian businesses, students and individuals, and Australians deserve better than a second rate NBN.
It is two years on from the 2013 election, when the member for Warringah was elected Prime Minister and the member for Wentworth became the Minister for Communications. They promised that they would build the National Broadband Network; their promise now lies in tatters. They promised they would build it for $29.5 billion; that has now blown out to almost double the cost, at $56 billion. They promised the NBN could be rolled out to all homes and businesses within three years, by the end of 2016; that has now more than doubled to seven years, by the end of 2020.
The Australian people deserve the National Broadband Network. Due to a lack of effort, a lack of organisation, a lack of foresight and a lack of commitment, we are currently in a situation where, in my electorate of Lalor, people are living in what is now a digital divide—a digital divide where some have the NBN, some have cable, some have ADSL1 and some have ADSL2. Those using ADSL are not shy in coming forward to say that their service is not good enough, that it is not keeping up and that people running businesses and families trying to get ahead with their children are being limited. Their productivity is being limited by limited access to the National Broadband Network. The people of Lalor deserve so much better. We are a resilient community. We are a community that is collaborative and that is working together to overcome the challenges that we confront. Some of those challenges are around employment. On Friday morning I met with BizBuddyHub, a collection of small and micro business operators who have banded together to find a space to work, where they can collaborate and create jobs, where they can work locally inside the community, and where they can have their children with them if they need to. But, most importantly, they are desperately trying to find a home where they can access fast broadband, because it is imperative for their businesses that they do. So I move this motion to say clearly that this is not good enough, that a digital divide is not what we need in our community and that our productivity depends on us having the best.
There have been no new areas in the electorate of Lalor added to the NBN rollout map since the election in 2013. In fact, there have been parts of Lalor taken off the future maps, and it is incredibly unfair that now people are going to be waiting possibly for five years to even know when the NBN will be coming. I have covered those with slow access to the internet, but there are those in greenfields with no access, who are relying on very expensive wireless internet.
The pits are being dug. Telstra are not connecting because they are waiting for the NBN to be rolled out. This is incredibly unfair. Many in the electorate have contacted me in recent weeks to say: 'We have looked at the maps, Joanne. Can you tell us when we will get the NBN in our area?' From different parts of the electorate the questions come thick and fast. People are aware that this is an unfair situation and they are aware that they are being put at a disadvantage.
I have had contact recently from many people in the electorate who are actually lucky enough to be having the NBN rolled out, but again it is fraught with difficulties. People are losing days at work as they book and re-book to have the connections done because the NBN arrives and is connected and then their provider arrives and says, 'No, it's not working,' and they have to start the process again. Many in the electorate are contacting me to complain about the effectiveness of the NBN rollout. We have people without the internet, people with slow speeds and people who are lucky enough to be getting the NBN but who are losing productivity. This really is not good enough from this government, and we really need to hold them to account.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the NBN because Townsville was chosen as an early rollout site. Of course, the NBN was done in response to the GFC. It raised many questions. One of the first questions was: why was the rollout done in a higgledy-piggledy style? It was to bring fibre to the premise of everyone's house. As the member for Lalor, who is now leaving the chamber, has said, it is not being rolled out to businesses. It would make more sense to me if we had rolled it out to business first. This is not a social enterprise or a social enhancement; this is an asset that will be sold by government. If you are going to get an asset that is going to be sold by government, surely you want it to be where the money is going to be made. If you roll the NBN out to my 84-year-old mother's house, where she checks her Facebook maybe once or twice a day and answers one email, there would be no real return on investment.
Townsville was an early rollout site, which was a gift and a curse. My city, which had suburbs with ADSL2+ already in abundance, was chosen as an NBN rollout site. Suburbs like Condon and Kirwan, parts of Belgian Gardens and other parts of my city were still on dial-up and are still on dial-up. The member for Lalor mentioned the relationship between NBN and Telstra. I have to tell you in my city now the relationship between Telstra and NBN is getting better and better and better, but I agree with her that the relationship at first was fraught because of the fractious and difficult ideological approach by the previous Labor government. They told Telstra that no matter what they did they would not get paid for it. So in all those new greenfield sites that were coming in and in all the areas where they had advanced capacity or they could bring in more ADSL2+ or shift it around, there was no reason for Telstra to do any work because they were never going to get paid for it. One of the first things that Malcolm Turnbull did when he took over as the Minister for Communications was repair that relationship with Telstra. It has borne great fruit. We are now in a better situation when it comes to the way we roll out this thing.
It depends where you want to go. It seems to me that the member for Lalor was saying that we should have rolled this out to business first and was asking why we are doing it to the home. It seems to me that she wants to change the rules of the game halfway through. The previous Minister for Communications, Stephen Conroy, said it would be led by bringing everyone onto the NBN with fibre to the premise, except for those people in remote and rural Australia. That was the difficult part. When both parties took up their position in 2007 their policies were very similar about needing to bring people in from the out and not build it again.
You had the ridiculous situation in the member the Chifley's electorate, which had UHF cabling for pay TV and full ADSL2 and then had the NBN hauled all over the top of it. Areas of my electorate, very much like areas of the member for Lalor's electorate, cannot understand why this map was originally done. What we are doing is rolling it out faster, more affordably to the customer and cheaper for the entire nation because we have to make sure that this thing is saleable at the end. To do that we must make sure that we have versatility in the rollout. In Townsville we had the entire CBD wired for the NBN for a good 12 to 14 months before we even had the technology to take it from the footpath to a multidwelling unit of offices.
We are trying to make sure that we do roll this thing out. This is not just about being able to watch Netflix or stream videos; this is about the future, and Townsville is seeing that future now. It still gets down to how much you want to spend on it. It still gets down to how much you are prepared to do, and fibre to the premises especially in difficult places is very expensive. I have a friend who is an engineer. He lives in Mundingburra, an early rollout site which had fibre to the premise. He reckoned it cost the NBN over $25,000 to get it from the footpath to his house because of the difficulty in accessing it. He is an engineer. He is on basic internet at home. He will pay about $50 a month for the NBN. It is going to take an awfully long time to get any return on that investment. Those are the sorts of things that we must do. I congratulate this government because in the entire time of the previous government we rolled it out to nearly 30,000 places and we have over 70,000 places already connected in Townsville.
I am happy to second this motion of the member for Ryan. I think this is an incredibly serious issue, as has been acknowledged on both sides of the House. NBN is essentially about our future, our international competitiveness. We are constantly telling our community that we have to be prepared to be globally competitive yet, unfortunately, this government has decided that they are going to lump us with an infrastructure rollout that is going to be substandard, that will put us well behind where our regional competitors already are. We are going to be left with a broadband product that is nowhere as good as that that we see in Singapore, in Korea, in Japan and increasingly in parts of China. Basically we getting a late 20th century product rather than a 21st century product.
On Saturday we had a great NBN forum in central Armadale in the seat of Canning. People there are acutely aware of just how bad their internet services have always been. They were indeed on Labor's rollout plan and under Labor's plan they were scheduled to get fibre-to-the-premises by June 2016. Now under the great Malcolm Turnbull scheme—'NBN light' or 'fraud band'—they are scheduled to get a lesser product and get that six months later. So now they are scheduled to get fibre-to-the-node and they are scheduled to get that six months later.
But our real concern is not only are we putting a lot of money into a substandard system but we believe that this is going to be simply not deliverable. The minister has acknowledged that he does not actually have any awareness of the state of the copper in Kelmscott and Armadale. As we heard over and over again from the community at this forum on Saturday, when it rains voice calls drop out routinely in this area. It gives us some idea of just what the state of this copper wire is.
The minister, when I questioned him during consideration in detail of the budget bills, claimed that this was all just a question of pair gains and that the problem is that we have made too many pair gains. Quite frankly, my advice is that there is a very limited number of the pair gains that he is talking about in this area and the problem is fundamentally that of the state of the copper. A voice call would not drop-out when it rains because of a pair gain system or a deficiency in the pair gain system. We have a minister here that is failing to realise and appreciate and take in hand this fundamental problem that exists—that much of the area over which he wants to lay out this fibre-to-the-node really has in that last kilometre a very degraded network, which simply is not going to be capable of delivering even the modest late-20th century speeds that he is undertaking.
There was also great concern expressed in the area about the potential for vandalism of those nodes in areas where there are social problems. Not taken into account is the much greater expense that is involved in maintaining this system. With fibre-to-the-node you need to have power boxes, you need to change the nature of the signal as it moves from fibre to copper and you need to keep it cool. This is going to be, I think at the end of the day, a system that will be greatly discredited. My very great concern for the people of Canning, for the people of Armadale and Kelmscott who have got very poor internet services, is that it is simply not going to be possible for them to deliver, even by December 2016. The infrastructure just simply is not up to it. We are going to find that out, unfortunately, only at the very last moment when they dig up the pits and find out exactly what is going on.
It is with great pleasure I rise to speak on this private member's motion because this is one of the big issues that we face. When we came to government, the NBN was a complete shambles—and that is being kind. Across most of the country, the project had completely stalled. I have started about eight companies in the course of my career. If there is one thing I have learnt in starting a new company it is that it is hard, it is risky and you rarely meet your time lines and budgets. In fact, the great Guy Kawasaki, who is a famous Silicon Valley investor, has always said, 'As a rule of thumb, I multiply revenues by 10 per cent when I look at a new start up.'
What the Labor Party was trying to do was to start up the largest infrastructure project in Australian history inside a start-up vehicle. It was never going to work. The numbers tell us everything we need to know. Labor totally underestimated the cost, the complexity and the time frames required for this project. As a result, released rollout schedules were unrealistic and totally inaccurate. They were always on one side and they were always way above what was going to be achieved. I cannot believe they are still defending the extraordinary pitiful work of Senator Conroy on this start-up vehicle which was never going to be successful. For instance, Labor originally forecasted that 2.7 million houses would be passed by fibre in the year they left government. It did not even come close. They then revised their forecast to 1.3 million passed by fibre. Again, they were never going to be close such was the bungling of this project.
The comprehensive strategic review, which was completed in December 2013 soon after we got into government, found that the new broadband network would only pass 467,000 houses—and that is pass, let alone connect. So that is 467,000 versus the original forecast of 2.7 million. Anyone who has been in a new business venture, who has started a new business venture of this level of complexity would know that is what is going to happen. But no-one over that side of that parliament really understands new business ventures. They do not understand how to start something new so they make these extraordinary mistakes and they end up with a shambles, a total shambles, which is what we had to deal with when we got into government.
To be able to access the NBN, you actually have to build it. I know it is a revelation for those opposite and they have failed on that most fundamental front. Their interim satellite solution in the bush was a total debacle. I have constituent after constituent coming to me saying that they are no longer connected to the internet. Why? Four times more people subscribed to the interim satellite service than the capacity that was established for it. It was a total disaster. Again, the work was not done. The visionary had no understanding of the detail that was necessary to deliver a genuine solution that was going to solve people's real problems.
The good news is that the NBN is now under new, competent management and is powering ahead, with more than 1.2 million premises now able to order a service and 546,000 families and businesses already online as paying customers. As the NBN announced last week, within three years about 9.1 million premises—where 76 per cent of Australians live and work—will be able to order a service. Under the coalition, the NBN will be completed by 2020, as against Labor's plan which conservatively, I think, would take until 2028. There is no point promising everybody a Rolls Royce if you are never going to get it, and that is exactly what those opposite did with the NBN. My electorate is suffering; I am suffering because I cannot connect to the ADSL where I live. It is a battle I have every day. Those opposite were going to get us there by 2028.
In Hume, we are making very, very good progress. We already have about 4½ thousand premises that are able to be connected on fixed wireless and 31,000 premises are to be rolled out over the coming weeks and months. Thank God that we have taken over the NBN.
The motion is very timely because two weeks ago the government released the NBN Corporate plan2016 and it reveals a massive blow-out in the cost of the National Broadband Network, a $26½ billion blow-out. The cost of the Abbott government's second-rate version of the NBN has now gone from $29½ billion to up to $56 billion—in other words, it has almost doubled.
As we know, today is the second anniversary of the election of the Abbott government. They have now been in power for two years and they have no-one else to blame for this mess than themselves, because this has happened because they got their assumptions wrong in opposition and because they seriously underestimated how difficult it would be to switch from building a world-class NBN using fibre to one using copper or HFC. Let me give you some examples.
The negotiations with Telstra to buy back the old copper network were supposed to be finalised by June last year. Instead, they were only finalised in June this year. It took a year longer than expected. As a result, the fibre-to-the-node network is now at least a year behind schedule. The Minister for Communications promised it would be rolling out at scale a year ago and it still is not. The HFC network is also way behind schedule. We were promised that 2.61 million homes would be connected to the NBN via HFC by the end of next year. The Corporate plan, released two weeks ago, now reveals that they will hit less than one-third of this target. These mistakes are based on these documents here, the coalition's election policy and the much-vaunted strategic review. What the corporate plan reveals is that both of these documents were hopelessly wrong.
In the first document, the 2013 election policy, the opposition said that they would be able to build the NBN, a second-rate version of the NBN, for $29½ billion. When the policy was released, the now minister said that the assumptions that he had made were 'conservative'. Well, he was wrong. The second document, the strategic review, said that this cost had blown out by $15 billion—from $29½ billion up to $41 billion. I remember when this report was released, the minister again said that the costings were 'conservative and achievable'. Again, he was wrong. The cost of their second-rate NBN is not going to be $29½ billion, not $41 billion, but now up to $56 billion—so much for the Liberal Party's great economic management. They have doubled the deficit and now they have almost doubled the cost of their second-rate NBN. It is not just the cost that has blown out; it is also the time that they promised they would build it.
As I mentioned, this is the second anniversary of the election of the Abbott government. On that night two years ago when the Abbott government was elected, the Prime Minister issued a public letter to the people of Australia, where he said:
I want our NBN to be delivered within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.
Well, that is not going to happen either. It will not be finished by the end of next year. According to the Corporate plan, it will not be finished until the end of 2020. That itself will require a massive increase in the speed of the rollout. Instead of three years, it will take seven, or more than double what the Prime Minister said two years ago today.
When in opposition, this government was very critical of the former Labor government on the NBN. Now, in government, they are responsible and they should be held accountable for their promises that they have broken as well as for the mistakes that they have made. Not only are they building a second-rate version of the NBN; it is going to cost almost double what they promised the people of Australia it would cost and it will take more than twice as long as they promised. No wonder the people of Australia are now calling the NBN the 'national blow-out network'. No wonder the people of Australia are so disappointed with this hopeless, hapless, divided, backward-looking government.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this motion. When I was given the honour of representing the Lyne electorate two years ago, I was advised as the local new member at the time that some areas in my electorate, including the metropolis of Port Macquarie, were not on the books anywhere in NBN's plans for over 10 years. Can you believe it? The old Labor Party back-of-the-coaster model did not have the biggest economic centre in the electorate on the radar for any of their Rolls-Royce pie-in-the-sky NBN for more than 10 years. I was flabbergasted.
Fast forward just two years after this botched rollout, this pie-in-the-sky plan that was built on the back of a coaster and—thanks to the efforts of coalition management and getting more business- and telco-minded people running the NBN, and minister Malcolm Turnbull directing them—we now have a much more sensible plan. A multitechnology mix is being employed so that there will be better horses for courses. There is all the new technology that is happening in the vector DSL space, with the fixed wireless space and the open wireless space. The coalition management plan is bringing the NBN much sooner to many more areas, rather than the old open-cheque-book approach. We have also got runs on the board in terms of revenue. There was so much being spent under the previous administration but hardly any revenue. Finally we have over half a million paying customers on the NBN.
But let's talk more about the Lyne electorate. As I mentioned when I was given the honour of representing the people of Lyne, there were only a couple of thousand people—despite six years of talk—that had potential access to the NBN. As we speak today, there are over 15,000 premises—probably 30,000 or 40,000 people—who can ring up and ask for a connection to the NBN. And, in the 2015-16 works program, there are another 21,000 premises that are included in the rollout—again, across the northern part of the Manning into the Hastings and the Gloucester valleys. As well as that, we have two satellites that will be coming online for a lot of the people in my electorate of Lyne that are not eligible to get a fixed radio wave from the wireless towers or fibre to the premises in the Manning. They will be able to get a much more capable satellite network. We all know about the fiasco of the previous satellite network. They underestimated the number of people it needed by over 150,000 people. The capacity was way under what was needed. I look forward to them coming online as well.
New areas that will be covered in the forward rollout plan are Black Head, Diamond Beach, Failford, Hallidays Point, Nabiac, Red Head, Tallwoods Village—and inside the fixed wireless footprint of Gloucester the actual township—as well as Harrington, Old Bar, Wallabi Point. And, thank goodness, along Hastings River Drive and on the north shore of Port Macquarie, the rollout of the multitechnology mix will be coming.
We already have a couple of greenfield sites with fibre to the premises. But, now that this rollout has been announced in the Hastings-Port Macquarie local government area, they will be there and delivering much sooner than the 'pie-in-the-sky 10 years away with hardly a mention' of the previous government. So people on the north shore—on Riverside, Thrumster, Lakewood, Laurieton, North Haven, West Haven—and in Wauchope, Camden Head and Dunbogan, can look forward to a realistic time frame for delivery of the NBN.
Also in the Manning where there is fibre to the premises, we now have over 7,500 premises that can get access as we speak. The middle of the Manning, the Taree central business district, was a hole in the network. It was not even covered. Due to negotiations with the NBN and the minister we have the hole in the CBD now available for NBN. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Northern Australians working within the tourism industry, which plays a vital role in supporting the Northern Australian economy;
(2) recognises that tourist spending provides further opportunities for local small businesses within the community; and
(3) notes that:
(a) the Government is investing in small businesses through its Jobs and Small Business Package released in the 2015 budget; and
(b) this package provides small businesses, including most businesses within the tourism industry, with much needed assistance to grow and create jobs.
The Top End of the Northern Territory is pretty much paradise. And, as I have said many times in this place, the Northern Territory is the true capital of north Australia. My electorate of Solomon, including the cities of Darwin and Palmerston, is a friendly, vibrant, multicultural, cosmopolitan place to live. The harbour, seas and rivers that surround us have some of the best sports fishing anywhere in the world. We have weekend markets with the world's best coffees and laksas. Most locals will go down to Parap markets and see Mary for a laksa. We have stunning national parks just down the road. We have a rich cultural history. We have the world's best weather, at least for most of the year. So it is no surprise that so many people want to visit. Alongside primary production and resources, tourism is one of the cornerstones of the Northern Territory economy. In the last year, the Northern Territory clocked 4.4 million visitor nights, and those visitors spent $1.85 billion, contributing 8.1 per cent to the territory's economy.
I put this motion to the House today to recognise the contribution that tourism operators contribute to the Northern Territory, and to northern Australia's economy. To the hoteliers, restaurateurs, tour operators, charter operators, to the bartenders and waiters, the bus drivers and rangers, and everyone else involved in tourism, to the 11.5 per cent of the Northern Territorians who are involved in the tourism sector, we owe a debt of thanks. The work you do pays off in two ways. Your sector of tourism, perhaps more than any other, has invaluable trickle-down contributions to the economy. Businesses like barra fishing safaris need to get their boats serviced and maintained—another popular service organisation is In & Outboard Marine. Our restaurants, like the award-winning Salt n Peppa, will only serve the best local barramundi and seafood. Because hoteliers need staff to prepare meals and greet guests they employ people, who in turn spend their wages in the Northern Territory, which further contributes to our economy. Money spent in tourism quickly makes its way down into the economy, keeping cashflow into the businesses and keeping Territorians in jobs.
The other major contributing factor is that every single satisfied customer you create—every single person who is awestruck by the sunset at Mindil Beach markets or the beauty and tranquillity of Yellow Water or the spectacular Litchfield National Park or Kakadu—goes back to where they came from down south and becomes a salesman for north Australia. It is wonderful that we have here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, who is very interested in Kakadu and Litchfield. He is going to have some announcements about that in the coming weeks. These people who become salesmen for north Australia then tell their friends what an amazing experience they had in the Top End. They will mention to their colleagues at work how much fun their kids had feeding the fish at Aquascene, or taking a tour with a traditional owner through Kakadu. They will post photographs on their social media of the prize fish they caught on a charter with, say, Darwin Reef 'n Wrecks. Who knows? They may even find the million-dollar barra, which the parliamentary secretary is also wanting to find—a million-dollar barra is swimming through our Top End waters.
Because of the hard work, the professionalism, the innovation and the commitment to creating a good product of everybody involved in the sector every single tourist who visits the Northern Territory or north Australia leaves us as an ambassador. The coalition government is helping this sector. Small business operators in tourism are benefiting from the lowest company tax rate in nearly 50 years, thanks to this year's budget through its Jobs and Small Business package. Tens of thousands of pages of red tape have been abolished or simplified. This means tourism operators can spend more time with their clients and less time filling out forms.
I am proud to be part of the coalition government which supports the tourism sector and supports small business in north Australia. Special thanks go to Tourism NT and Tourism Top End for the great work that they do in advocating for tourism across the Northern Territory. I would also like to plug the new campaign—#DoTheNT.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the member for Solomon's motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Solomon for moving this motion on tourism and small businesses. She made some valid points, but there are others that she overlooked which I will concentrate on in a moment. It is important that we understand that the tourism industry in the Northern Territory revolves around iconic sites, all of which are in my electorate. It revolves around the fishing, all of which is in my electorate, including in Darwin Harbour. Whilst it is very important that the institutionalised tourism relating to the arts and craft, the museum and the work of the hoteliers and restaurateurs in Darwin is acknowledged, it is important to understand that, primarily, when people come to the Northern Territory they want to visit Lingiari and all of its attractions, including most importantly engaging with Aboriginal people.
The latest visitation figures supplied by Tourism NT are from March 2015. Sadly, they tell us there has been a decline of 4.8 per cent in tourism visitation over the previous year. Tourism is the single largest employer in the NT economy, accounting for more than 15,000 workers both directly and indirectly employed. Those figures are from 2013-14 and roughly equate to 12 per cent of the total working population. Tourism income from the same year amounted to $1.61 billion, gross value added. There are many small businesses active in the tourism market in the Northern Territory that are working their guts out—figuratively and literally—on a daily basis to increase the Territory's share of the declining tourism market. They are often family owned and run initiatives that work to show visitors the best the NT has to offer.
There has always been high demand for Indigenous tourism experiences—I know this from my own work with the Central Land Council in the 1980s, when I was involved in working with the tourism industry and undertaking what I believe to have been the first tourism survey of visitors to Uluru. Eighty per cent of international visitors are seeking an Aboriginal tourism experience. Large Indigenous-owned organisations like Katherine-based Nitmiluk Tours and the Ayers Rock Resort at Uluru are leading the way in developing new products like Nitmiluk's new culture cruise that explores the history, culture, art and stories of the Jawoyn traditional owners. The new Wintjiri Arts and Museum at Yulara in the Ayers Rock Resort will enable visitors to learn more about Anangu culture and to interact with artists and artisans from the nearby Mutitjulu community.
However, it is the smaller family- and community-owned and operated Aboriginal tourism experiences that have the potential to have the greatest impact on regional development and employment across the Territory. Twenty different Yolngu communities have united behind a plan, Lirrwi Tourism, to create a thriving tourism industry that will foster economic independence, strengthen cultural traditions and help Australia's tourism profile internationally and domestically. Djawa 'Timmy' Burarrwanga has a vision of as many as 50 new Aboriginal-owned businesses in Arnhem Land. The Yolngu tourism masterplan has been developed with the help of former Tourism Australia managing director, John Morse, who believes that Arnhem Land has the potential to become Australia's next tourism icon. He says:
Arnhem Land is one of the most extraordinary places in Australia—a land with a deep spiritual significance where you can make a personal connection with the world's oldest continuous culture. It will never be a mass tourism destination, but it has the potential to be a very high-value destination that helps define Australia internationally and contribute a great deal to our national identity.
Despite the best efforts of hardworking tourism operators, they are being badly let down by this current government. This government and the CLP representatives in Canberra have vacated the field as far as promoting Australian tourism is concerned, at the most important time for job creation. There is no designated tourism minister—merely an afterthought to the trade ministry. The Abbott government has cancelled all domestic marketing funding. The withdrawal of funding has meant that there will be no Australia Week in China 2015, potentially our biggest tourism market. There is no Australian stall at the world expo in Milan this year. More than 120 countries will have stalls, but sadly we will not. Vanuatu will. The Abbott Government has withdrawn our membership of the United Nations World Tourism Organization.
These are serious matters. As the mining boom declines and the Australian economy shifts towards service provision, we need to promote employment growth in other sectors, particularly in tourism. I say to tourism operators in the Northern Territory: despite the ridiculousness of the way in which this government is approaching tourism, tourism operations and tourism marketing, you know that you have our support—that is, the Labor Party's support—to go on and do your jobs and to provide good tourism experiences for all those who wish to visit, including the grey nomads who go up and down the Stuart Highway, as well as overseas visitors.
I thank the member for Solomon for putting this motion to the House, because it gives me the opportunity to talk directly about Capricornia, which is the gateway to northern Australia. The Tropic of Capricorn is the geographic line which defines the starting point of our nation's North, and this line is the southern boundary of my electorate.
So why should you come and visit us? Capricornia is home to the southern Great Barrier Reef, with amazing beaches, fishing and island getaways; rainforest retreats such as Byfield; and picturesque towns such as Yeppoon and Emu Park, which is home to the most stunning Anzac war memorial in Queensland. Capricornia is the beef and sugar capital of Australia and has a rich inland tourism trail leading to Carnarvon Gorge, the Sapphire Gemfields, and farm stays. And, of course, we are home to the best viewing spot for wild platypus, at Eungella in the beautiful Pioneer Valley west of Mackay.
Tourism and hospitality are one of the top five pillars of Australia's future economic growth. We rely on small family-run tourist enterprises to bring visitors and dollars into our economy. One such small business is the Capricorn Caves, stunning limestone caves north of Rockhampton. Here, owner Ann Augusteyn has completed a bold project to replace old lighting that has illuminated the caves' interior since the 1960s. The caves are now lit for tourists, with solar panelled LED technology, the first system of its kind in Australia. It is the first cave in Australia to run lights off solar power. It provides a template for other cave managers from around the world to see an increase in local tourist numbers.
Spending by tourists provides opportunities for local small business to grow and prosper within our communities, which in turn creates more jobs for locals, young people and our local families. The difference between us and Labor is that the coalition government is investing in small businesses like tourism through our Growing Jobs and Small Business package, released in the 2015 budget. It is hailed as the nation's most significant small business package in 50 years. It provides small businesses, including the tourism industry, with much-needed assistance to grow and create jobs. Key benefits directly helping mum-and-dad businesses include cuts to small business tax and tax depreciation help. Small businesses with turnover below $2 million benefit from an immediate tax deduction for every asset they acquire that is valued up to $20,000 for tax purposes. Coupled with this package are our free trade agreements that this government has arranged with China, Japan and Korea. They will promote our nation's trade and enhance our profile as a key destination for international visitors.
That is what we are doing, but sadly Labor is lagging far behind. In Capricornia, I am fighting along with the Capricorn Coast community for the Labor government in Queensland to grant a boutique gaming licence to Great Keppel Island, once a bustling tourism and holiday hot spot off Yeppoon. There is a proposed major resort project on Great Keppel Island which would potentially provide 1,500 local jobs directly linked to tourism. The GKI project, as it is known, includes a small-scale casino which is necessary to attract international travellers. But once again in Capricornia Labor, beholden to the Greens, is refusing to get on and approve it. We have lost countless jobs in our local coal sector in the past few years, and now an incompetent Labor government in Queensland is staring down 1,500 new jobs for Central Queensland families. We need this project for our economy, our tourism and our employment. I continue to call on Labor to show some spine and stop standing in the way of families and young people who need jobs. Get on with it and approve the GKI licence now.
Whilst I acknowledge this motion that is before the House and the fact that it talks about an important topic—tourism in northern Australia and the importance it has to the northern Australian economy—there are a couple of points in the motion that I think the government is trying to gloss over and not deal with the reality of. The first, as the previous speaker on this side of the House mentioned, is that this government, on coming to office, cancelled all funding that was allocated to promoting and developing the domestic tourism market. I am from regional Victoria, and we have cold winters, and there are lots of people seeking a warmer tourism location and holiday. It is just disappointing that this government has cancelled the funding that would have helped promote northern Australia to people in the southern states that have cold winters.
This government, on coming to office, also scrapped tourism grants, which were going to help a number of small businesses and tourism operators to develop strategies. In this motion, the mover has acknowledged the government is investing in small business through its Jobs and Small Business package released in this year's budget. Let us not forget that members of this government are the same people who voted against a similar package when the Labor government brought it forward. Then, when this government came to office last year, in its first budget it scrapped a similar package. Now it has brought it back. So it is not new policy by this government; it is Labor policy that these government members voted against when they were in opposition. Then they repealed it when they were in government. They have now brought it back in this budget.
The other point I would like to make is about the final part of the motion, about the creation of jobs. Jobs for who? In my experience, and from talking to people who work in the North, this government has been very good at creating jobs for overseas workers, for backpackers, in the North, particularly in the tourism industry. The latest figures we have are that there are quarter of a million backpackers working here in Australia on the 417 visa program and a further 10,000 of them on the 462 visa program, many of whom are working in the north of Australia.
This government has a priority about creating job opportunities not for locals, not for local young people, but for people who are here on temporary work visas. And just to demonstrate how committed—or addicted—this government is to creating job opportunities for young overseas people here on working holidays, it proudly promoted in a press release, as recently as 19 June 2015, that it was improving the vital working holiday program to include allowing backpackers to work for 12 months instead of six months for a single northern employer, and a small number of these would then receive a second year. The government quite proudly promotes that it is going to streamline and make it easier for these overseas backpackers. It is extending the work visa holiday program.
Why this is a problem and why I seek to raise it is that the government is making it easier for young overseas backpackers to work here in this country in the same areas that are in the midst of a youth unemployment crisis. In Townsville in July 2015, the latest figures show, youth unemployment was up to 19.7 per cent. In Cairns, also part of northern Australia, youth unemployment is 22.1 per cent. So more than one in five young people in Cairns is unemployed and cannot get work. Yet this government is seeking to streamline and make it easier, to encourage more overseas workers to come in and take these local jobs.
If this government were serious about creating jobs in northern Australia, it would be serious about creating jobs for local people. It would not be seeking to use the temporary work visa program to bring in overseas workers, when we know there are locals available. It is disappointing that this government, in this motion, has not outlined how it is going to create local jobs.
We have just heard from the squeaky voice of the union movement with all of the usual lies that we hear about foreign workers taking jobs in this country. What arrant nonsense we have just heard. They get up here and they tell us, 'This 417 visa is absolutely terrible.' But did they have it in the life of their government? Did they allow businesses to use it? Of course they did. We are talking about backpacker workers. These backpackers come in and they do work in industries such as fruit picking, where the farmers find it near impossible to get Australian people to come in and work. Then, when they are not working, what do the backpackers do? They do similar to what they do in my area, where they go and fruit-pick in Bowen and then they go an hour down the road to Airlie Beach and they spend the rest of their time in bars, on the sea on adventure cruises and that sort of thing—actually pouring money into the tourism industry.
This nonsense about backpackers taking Australian jobs is complete and utter nonsense. If the Labor Party want to come to this chamber and say they are going to end it, then get up and actually say that. Get up and say that, because you will have a farming movement that will breathe down your necks about where they are going to get the labour from to actually pick the fruit off the trees and pick the vegetables out of the ground. More importantly, you will have the tourism industry breathing down your neck as well about where the extra dollars are going to come from if these backpackers are not coming to Australia.
The Whitsundays, which is a collection of 74 islands—parts of the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent coastline in my electorate—offers some of the most iconic tourism opportunities in Australia that those backpackers come to see. There is the reef, teeming with marine life; the islands; the dense rainforest; wildlife; and the white sands of Whitehaven Beach, this year ranked by TripAdvisor as the ninth-best beach in the world. What the Whitsundays has to offer can compete with the world's best and attracts visitors from around the world.
But the potential for growth in our tourism industry is enormous. Domestic tourism in the Whitsundays last year saw half a million visitors, and only a third came from outside of Queensland. International tourism in the Whitsundays last year brought another 189,000 visitors, spending a combined 1.3 million nights, mostly from the UK and Germany. While UK visitors have declined 21 per cent from the previous year, there is strong growth from France and Canada. The looming growth for the international holiday market is from China, with visitor numbers to the Whitsundays rising almost 70 per cent, from a very low base. While the Whitsundays offers a world-class destination, it attracts just a nine per cent share of total visitors to Queensland.
The government has recognised the potential of places like the Whitsundays and has outlined plans for tourism growth in the northern Australia white paper. We have put forward actions for targeting that growth, including $13.6 million to extend management advice and other business support services to northern tourism businesses, under the Entrepreneurs' Program, extending similar services to around 500 businesses in the North by lowering the minimum turnover and operating expenditure threshold to $750,000. We have cut red tape on things like souvenirs and exports of low-risk species. We are looking at options to streamline and expedite processing and extend the length of CITES permits for commercial trade in low-risk industries, such as the crocodile industry. We are expanding the working holiday maker visa program to allow participants to work for longer in high-demand areas in northern Australia—like fruit picking, where Australians just simply do not want to do the work—with a small number allowed a second year on their visa if they work in agriculture or tourism.
The white paper also identified direct flights into Cairns International Airport as a driver of industry growth in that region, and we have facilitated international flights at the Townsville. Airports in the Whitsundays and in Mackay are looking at similar ventures to open up more tourism as well as the export of product from the North. Water quality is also an issue in the Whitsundays, and we are doing work on that. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Reef; $140 million to the Reef Trust, which is charged with innovative and targeted investment to improve water quality. We will get water quality improved in the Whitsundays. We are doing a lot to promote northern development and to create northern jobs for Australians and not just backpackers.
Debate adjourned.
() (): On behalf the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present Report 450: Annual Report 2014-15—Report, August 2015.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The report details the activities of the committee, including reviewing reports of the Auditor-General on behalf of the parliament; reviewing the Defence Materiel Organisation's major projects report; inquiring into the operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office; scrutinising the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the development of the Commonwealth performance framework, including improving the key performance reporting documents, such as annual reports, corporate plans and portfolio budget statements; considering the work plans and resources of the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office; approving the nomination for the appointment of the Auditor-General; and encouraging parliamentary and public awareness of the financial and related operations of the government.
I would like to thank the members of the JCPAA, particularly the deputy chair, Mr Pat Conroy, for their excellent work. On behalf of the committee, I affirm our commitment to continue the committee's proud tradition of proper scrutiny of the use of public resources by the executive and its agencies. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for all of their support and assistance, including in the preparation of this report. I thank departmental and Audit Office representatives who have appeared at public hearings for assisting the committee in its important role of holding Commonwealth agencies to account for the efficiency and effectiveness with which they use public moneys. I commend the report to the House.
I ask leave of the House to present executive minutes on reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Leave granted.
I present executive minutes on report No. 445, recommendations (1) and (3) to (7) and report No. 447, recommendations (5) and (9) to (10).
I present the report of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The bill would allow Australian citizenship to be stripped from dual nationals who, in repudiation of their allegiance to Australia, engage in certain terrorism-related conduct. There are three mechanisms proposed in the bill by which a person could lose their citizenship: renunciation through their conduct; renunciation through service outside Australia in the armed forces of an enemy country or a declared terrorist organisation; or following a conviction for terrorist offences and certain other offences.
In the course of the inquiry, the committee received more than 40 written submissions and conducted three public hearings with a broad range of legal groups, academics, other non-government organisations and government agencies. The committee carefully considered the evidence it received and concluded that it is appropriate that persons who clearly repudiate their allegiance to the Australian community by engaging in serious terrorism-related conduct against Australia or Australian interests should no longer have the right to call themselves Australian citizens.
The committee has produced a comprehensive report that acknowledges and responds to issues raised by contributors. The report's 27 recommendations support our national security and law enforcement capabilities while narrowing the scope of the bill's application and improving safeguards, oversight and accountability mechanisms. The committee has recommended that the loss of citizenship through a person's conduct—as outlined in proposed section 33AA of the bill—be limited to conduct occurring outside Australia or to conduct in Australia where the person involved has fled overseas before being charged and brought to trial. This provision of the bill is self-executing, meaning that, once a person has engaged in the specified conduct, they are taken to have renounced their citizenship.
Where a person is convicted of one of the relevant offences listed in proposed section 35A, the committee has recommended that the minister be required to make a positive decision that a person's citizenship should be lost. In making this decision, the minister should be satisfied that a person's conviction demonstrates that they have repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
The committee considered that the conviction based provisions should only apply to the most serious offences. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that section 29 of the Crimes Act—which relates to destroying or damaging Commonwealth property—and a number of other offences that carry a maximum penalty of less than 10 years imprisonment or have never been used, be removed from the list of relevant offences for which a conviction can lead to loss of citizenship.
Similarly, to capture the most serious conduct, the committee is of the view that the conviction based provision should only apply in circumstances where a person has been given a sentence of at least six years imprisonment.
The committee was asked by the Attorney-General to consider whether the conviction based provisions should be applied retrospectively. The committee acknowledged that retrospectivity should only be applied with great caution and carefully considered the evidence it received on this matter. The committee formed the view that past terrorist related conduct is conduct that all members of the Australian community would view as repugnant and a deliberate step outside the values that define our society.
Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the conviction based provisions of the bill be applied retrospectively to convictions for relevant offences where sentences of 10 years or more have been handed down by a court. It is the committee's view, however, that the minister must not retrospectively revoke citizenship where a conviction was handed down more than 10 years before the bill received royal assent.
In other measures to enhance the procedural fairness of the bill, the committee has recommended that the minister provide notice to the person affected that citizenship has been lost or revoked, and give reasons for the loss.
The committee has made two recommendations to limit the application of the bill to children. Firstly, that no part of the bill apply to conduct by a child aged less than 10 years and that proposed sections 33AA and 35 do not apply to conduct by a child aged under 14 years. Secondly, that section 36 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007—which enables the minister to revoke a child's citizenship following revocation of a parent's citizenship—does not apply to this bill.
Finally, the committee has made several recommendations designed to strengthen oversight and accountability, including an ongoing review role for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Subject to these recommendations, the committee supports the bill's passage through the parliament. I would like to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and commitment to achieving this bipartisan outcome. In particular, I would like to once again express my gratitude to the deputy chair, Mr Byrne, for the way that he cooperatively works with me on producing the bipartisan reports that we have in the last couple of years.
I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I present the Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 13 (2013-2014)—Australian Intelligence Agencies.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—I would now like to turn to the second report of the committee. The committee has today fulfilled one of its key statutory oversight responsibilities with the tabling of its report into the review of administration and expenditure of the Australian Intelligence Agencies for the 2013-2014 financial year.
I am pleased to report that the committee concluded that agencies are currently overseeing their administration and expenditure appropriately.
For a number of years now, the committee has monitored the impact of the efficiency dividend and other savings measures on agencies. In this review, the committee sought assurances that each agency continues to have the necessary resources to address Australia's national security priorities.
While outside the review period, recent increases to the ongoing funding of intelligence agencies and the Office of National Assessment's exemption from the efficiency dividend, help allay the committee's concerns that agencies are at the point of being unable to find further efficiencies without affecting ongoing capability or operations.
The committee will monitor the effect of these funding decisions in its future reviews.
Both these inquiries have taken place at a time when Australia is facing a heightened security environment. A major reason for the increased threat level is Australians travelling overseas to train with, fight for or otherwise support extremist groups, and the risks posed by these individuals when they return to Australia. In considering the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill and conducting its annual review of the intelligence agencies, the committee has sought to ensure that these agencies have the tools and resources they require to support our national security and law enforcement capabilities.
I would like to take a brief moment to thank the secretariat for their ongoing hard work. When it comes to the work of the committee, we have obviously faced a significant workload in this term of parliament and the professionalism and the dedication that the secretariat has shown throughout that process is to be commended. I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report into the citizenship bill.
Leave granted.
I am very pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report on the Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This bill, which provides in several ways for the revocation of the Australian citizenship of dual nationals involved in terrorist activity, was introduced into the parliament in this place on 24 June and immediately referred to the committee.
The committee received dozens of submissions from community organisations, human rights groups, legal experts and the legal profession itself—in particular, from the Law Council of Australia, the peak body of Australia's lawyers; and from the Australian Bar Association, the peak body of Australia's barristers.
The committee held three days of public hearings. The committee conducted its private deliberations with the conscientiousness and seriousness that you would expect for a bill of this character, and I am very grateful for the hard work put in by my colleagues on that committee.
Deliberations were not easy. There were, as you would expect, a variety of strongly held views about this bill, but I am happy that through many hours of deliberation and negotiation we were able to conclude a unanimous report. I acknowledge in particular the chair of the committee, the member for Wannon, and the deputy chair, the member for Holt, Mr Byrne. I believe that the hard work of the committee on the many difficult issues presented by this bill is more than evident in the lengthy, considered report that has just been tabled and especially in its 27 substantive recommendations. I also want to add my voice to that of the chair, the member for Wannon, in thanking the staff of the committee, who worked under considerable pressure to assist the committee in producing this substantial report in a very timely way, working to a very tight timetable.
If the government accepts the recommendations in this report—and I urge the government to do so—this bill will have a far more refined and focused operation than it would have had the bill in its current form proceeded. The legislation to be produced if the government does accept the recommendations will incorporate greater checks on executive power. It will be a bill that produces a law with far greater oversight and far greater transparency. I want to briefly note just some of the recommendations in the report so that the House can see how significant they are.
First and, I think, most significantly, the committee has recommended that the conduct provisions of the bill—that is, those provisions that would strip citizenship in the absence of a conviction in an Australian court—will only apply where a person has gone overseas to engage in terrorist activity or where a person has engaged in terrorist activity here and then fled overseas. Only then will a person be able to lose their citizenship in the absence of a conviction. The committee's recommendations set up a very clear division in the law as it is intended to operate in respect of those Australian citizens who are in Australia and in respect of who a conviction will be required before a ministerial discretion can be brought to bear and for those Australian citizens overseas who now, if this bill becomes law, will have the possibility of losing their citizenship in respect of conduct.
The second recommendation that I draw attention to is the recommendation of the committee that the offences which the conviction provisions of the bill deal with are to be considerably narrowed. In its original form the bill proposed—I think incredibly—that a person could be liable to cancellation of their citizenship when convicted of offences such as intentionally damaging or destroying Commonwealth property. That is obviously inappropriate, and the committee has recommended that the offences be narrowly targeted to serious terror and national security offences. In addition, to make the point even clearer that the law for cancellation of citizenship ought to be concerned with serious offences only, the committee has recommended that the conviction based provisions apply only where the person concerned has been sentenced to more than six years imprisonment.
The committee has acted on concerns expressed by many of the submissions about rule-of-law issues. The committee has recommended, for example, that notice is required to be given in all cases of cancellation of citizenship other than where there is some national security reason for the delay of giving of notice. The committee has recommended that reasons be given in all cases and that the review rights which will be available to any Australian citizen affected by these cancellation of citizenship provisions be set out in the bill.
There are other recommendations. Submissions put with great force and clarity the recommendation that the term 'service', which appears in one of the conduct based provisions, be clarified so that there is not by reason of this legislation an unintentional catching of the Red Cross or other humanitarian workers who as part of their humanitarian work will potentially be working with terrorists. We would not want that humanitarian work to be caught by a cancellation of citizenship provision.
As the chair has mentioned in his remarks, in addition, the committee has made recommendations to ensure that Australia's obligations under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child are tended to and made recommendations to ensure that none of the provisions of this bill will catch children.
I think that is sufficient to give to the House a sense of the very substantial work that has been done by the intelligence committee on this bill. I say again that I urge the government to accept each and every one of the recommendations in this report. They will make the bill that the government brought to this House on 24 June a better bill and better law. I commend the report to the House.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will create jobs, promote international trade and boost Australia's prosperity. The AIIB's purpose is to build the infrastructure needed by countries across the region, building trading capacity, productivity and prosperity. It will fill the gap in infrastructure across developing and less developed countries across the Asia-Pacific.
These countries are not just the nearest neighbours to Australia but are also our greatest potential customers. For example, the World Bank estimates that Indonesia has a reported $600 billion infrastructure investment gap over the next five years. Indonesian maritime and logistics infrastructure alone makes up $50 billion of this infrastructure gap over the next five years. With more than 10,000 islands and a population of 250 million, this kind of infrastructure is crucial to ensuring that products can get to market and services are delivered to communities. Indonesia is not alone in this regard, and the infrastructure gap is massive. But it is also a representative of the potential. From wool, wine and wheat to education, tourism and financial services, building the capacity for Asia will mean our neighbours can buy more of our goods and that we can bring more of our product to their markets. We can reach new markets and expand access to our existing markets.
Simply, joining the AIIB is in our interests and it is in our interests to be a founding member. With northern neighbours like Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and China, it is absolutely in our interests to join the bank and to make sure we are a founding member. The government have signed the three free trade agreements in this last year and a half, with South Korea, Japan and China, because we recognise the potential of the Asian market and how our future is dependent on our ability to access it. We need to be able to access those markets for our goods and services, but one of the things we can definitely do to help is to make sure that the countries of Asia have the infrastructure to be able to do that, and this is what the bank will focus on. If we can have the infrastructure in Indonesia improved, not only will it enable goods and services to flow more readily between the many islands in Indonesia but also it will give greater access to Australian goods and services, because if we can get access to better infrastructure in key ports in Indonesia then obviously our goods will flow more freely, there will be more demand for them, and that will put more money back into the pockets of Australian businesses, including Australian service providers and Australian farmers, and this will set up the future of our nation.
There is a possibility that Australia will also be a beneficiary of the AIIB's development loans, with an ability for the government to be a recipient of money in order to develop capacity in rural and regional Australia. This is a very important point. When I speak to my colleagues from regional and rural Australia—and the majority of them are obviously on the coalition side—one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is how much we need to continue to ensure that regional and rural Australia gets the infrastructure that it needs. Obviously the future is bright for agriculture, in particular, in regional and rural areas, and we need to ensure we have the infrastructure available to get the goods and services from regional and rural Australia to market and to get them to our neighbours in Asia and to other parts of the world, and this requires funding. It requires funding for ports and requires funding in particular for rail and roads to ports. This is something that as a nation we have not been as good at as we should have been, and it is something that this government is focusing on. To start with, in my electorate two major pieces of road infrastructure are currently being undertaken. The Princes Highway has been duplicated through to Colac and my hope is it will be duplicated beyond that. Also, the Western Highway, the key freight route between Melbourne and Adelaide, is being duplicated as far as Stawell, with further works to be undertaken after that. The government is putting its money where its mouth is, but, if we can get better access to even further funds from the bank, you can rest assured that those in regional and rural Australia will see this as an absolute bonus. The more we can do to help especially state governments with their part of the road network, the better we will all be. State governments in particular have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to maintaining their road networks, let alone upgrading and improving them, so once again we will need to step up to the plate on this.
The AIIB will operate like currently existing development banks such as the World Bank. There is nothing extraordinary about this. The way it will operate will be similar to the World Bank, and we have all seen where the World Bank has operated effectively. I must say the World Bank has had to learn as it has gone through its various stages, because some things the World Bank have done have not got the results and have not been implemented as successfully as we would all have wanted. The World Bank continues to adapt and continues to try and ensure that its funding and projects continue to deliver, and the AIIB will operate very similarly to this.
To find an example of how it works, we need only look to Pakistan, where in Karachi the port is being completely rebuilt thanks to a $115 million loan. Karachi's port, prior to the development, took 60 per cent of Pakistan's imports. After the World Bank's development project is complete, Karachi's port capacity will be tripled. The project is expected to be finished at the end of the year. For a developing country like Pakistan, it is incredibly important that it can get this type of project up. You will have to excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a touch of the hiccups and I might just pause for a glass of water—
You have leave given, Member for Wannon.
It is the first time I have experienced hiccups during a speech.
Hansard is looking forward to it!
Hopefully that glass of water will improve the situation, otherwise, as someone has quipped, Hansard is going to be making some interesting recording during the rest of this speech. There might be some editing required. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
You are welcome.
Back to this very important matter: a country like Pakistan is obviously a developing country. In my view, it is incredibly important that we enable these countries to facilitate trade, because trade, in the end, is a better form than aid of their making sure that they have a sustainable future. If we can put the infrastructure in place, like the Karachi port, which will enable them to triple the amount of goods going in and out of that port, that is a significant development for Pakistan. That means Pakistan will grow. It means the income of its citizens will grow. It will mean that not only the demand for goods and services from within Pakistan but also demand for external goods will improve, and that means something for Australian exports. For example, we export wheat to Pakistan. There will be a greater demand for Australian wheat. The benefits then flow through to Australia. This is why it is in our interests to support a bank of this nature.
That example of the Karachi port I think is an excellent one because, as I say, this is not just excellent news for the people of Karachi and Pakistan, who will be able to bring more into their market and community, but also an incredible opportunity for a trading nation like Australia. Currently, we have exports of $423 million in goods to Pakistan each year. Of this, our top exports are goods transported through shipping—seeds, vegetables, coal and fertiliser, worth $271 million, and wheat, as I mentioned previously. Pakistan's new capacity will mean that our farmers and miners can ship more goods to Pakistan without being constrained by port capacity or expensive wait times at the dock.
However, the World Bank must cater for the globe, and we must wait for projects such as this to develop across our region. With the new AIIB, these projects can be provided faster and on our doorstep, where our exporters need them most. As a growing middle class expands in Asia, the AIIB will provide funds infrastructure, potentially unleashing demand on Australian commodities such as beef and dairy. These commodities will continue to expand their market in Australia's closest market.
It is interesting what a few people have said on this. John Brumby, the former Victorian Premier, has said:
Asia faces chronic infrastructure shortage and the AIIB is an important mechanism to … support regional growth. Strong regional growth is good for Australian business and good for the region …
The Business Council of Australia also has said:
Australian companies will benefit from opportunities to participate in developing and building new AIIB financed infrastructure, as well as having access to improved infrastructure which facilitates trade in the region.
And then of course we have the Treasurer, Mr Hockey. He has said:
This is real, tangible, meaningful … policy …
I think that is a very succinct way to sum up. This is real, tangible and meaningful policy.
It is real because it will deliver important economic results for the region. It is real in that the impact of it will not only be felt in Asia but felt here in Australia as well. It is real in that it will make a difference to people's lives. In particular, in developing countries, it will make a difference to the lives of those people who are living on or below the poverty line, because they are the people who ultimately, if we can get economic growth going in these developing countries, will be lifted up out of that poverty zone. That is what this bank is all about.
It is tangible because it sees the region coming together and cooperating to lift its growth. It is tangible in that it means that we will be cooperating together as a region. It is tangible in that it means that, as nations, as we prepare for the future of the Asia-Pacific region—and we know that the Asia-Pacific region is the growth region of the world—we are setting it up to continue to grow and continue to be the part of the world which the rest of the world will look to for serious leadership.
And it is meaningful policy. It is meaningful policy in that this means that Australia is doing its part. Australia is playing its part. It means that once again Australia is setting itself up for the future. I must commend the Treasurer because the Treasurer fought long and hard for us to be able to be a founding member of the AIIB. He was prepared to go out and say: 'This is the type of leadership that Australia must show in the region. Let's not be frightened about the potential for this bank to be set up. Let's actually embrace it. Let's see where our future lies—it lies in this region—and let's make sure that we are very much a part of it.'
It is just like the way that the government is leading the way with the China FTA. We are not being weighed down by negativity and pessimism about certain implications which are completely ill founded; we are prepared to say this is the right thing for our nation's future. So, in a similar vein to the China FTA, it is a pleasure to be here today to support the AIIB. I say to the Treasurer: well done for your leadership on this issue.
I rise to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015, and, like my Labor colleagues, I am pleased that the coalition finally, after months of dithering and infighting, agreed to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Labor had been calling on the Abbott government to support the bank for many months. This multilateral development bank has the potential to boost infrastructure investment in our region by more than $100 billion. It is an opportunity for improved infrastructure and to meet the infrastructure needs of our neighbours in this region. We can see that this bank will give rise to great opportunities and has the potential to make a great contribution to economic development in developing nations throughout our region, so I am pleased that Australia is committing $930 million to the bank. The bank is supported by many of our friends and neighbours across our region and beyond, and it is a shame that we had to play catch-up when many of our neighbours saw the opportunity and the benefits very early, after the initiative was first made public.
It seems obvious to Labor that our nation needs to be part of this new institution, an initiative of our nation's great friend China. China will have over 30 per cent of the equity in the bank at the outset. When the constitution was signed by 50 of the 57 founders in July, President Xi Jinping called it 'a historic step'. Labor has shown great leadership over many decades in building the relationship between China and Australia, and it is in the context of that great leadership that it is particular pleasing to support Australia's involvement in this bank today.
As we heard repeatedly from those who spoke on the condolence motion when we lost Gough Whitlam last year, Prime Minister Whitlam was a pioneer for the relationship, both in opposition and as Prime Minister. He advocated for the recognition of the People's Republic from 1954. Showing great leadership, with the support of our then national secretary Mick Young, he led a delegation to China in 1971 from opposition—he visited China before Henry Kissinger. On that visit he met with the Premier of China. That lengthy meeting was the first meaningful contact between Chinese and Australian political leaders since 1949.
Gough went to China in 1971 because of trade. There was a concern at the time that China might not renew its wheat contracts with Australia. Then Prime Minister McMahon was making excuses to Australian wheat growers, but Gough acted, drawing the Prime Minister's outrage. The consequence of Gough's action was a renewed understanding that to promote trade between our two countries there needed to be diplomatic recognition. A short time later the then conservative Prime Minister McMahon rubbished the visit and said:
We must not become pawns of the giant Communist power in our region.
At the time, Prime Minister McMahon thought Labor's support of our nation's relationship with China was an asset to the Liberal Party. Pleasingly, a short time later, in 1973, the then Prime Minister Whitlam became the first Australian Prime Minister to visit China.
The next Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was another great supporter of our relationship with China. He moved swiftly to build a relationship with Chinese leaders and in February 1984, following talks with Premier Zhao Ziyang, announced an agreement to integrate China and Australia's iron and steel industries. As the Australia-China Relations Institute at UTS has recorded:
Between 1977 and 1984 two-way trade—
had—
an annual growth rate of 12.3 percent. During 1984-1985—
the financial year 1984-85—
Australia's exports to China rose by 73.4 percent, exceeding $1 billion for the first time. In the space of one year China went from being Australia's tenth largest export market to fifth—
in that year.
Prime Minister Hawke built up trade between our countries in iron ore, coal, wool, agriculture and other metals. That work stood us in good stead for the decades since. Prime Minister Keating was a strong supporter of the relationship. For example, in his visit to China in 1993 he sought to increase trade, not just in commodities and agriculture but in advanced manufacturing and services, raising the prospect of exports in relation to telecommunications, computer science and environmental technology.
Prime Minister Rudd was known for his efforts to increase Australian understanding of China and to strengthen the already strong relationship with what had, by his prime ministership, become Australia's largest trading partner. Of course, Prime Minister Gillard commissioned and delivered her white paper Australia in the Asian century. This paper focused on the opportunities that lay ahead for us in Asia, including in China, but of course not to the exclusion of all other Asian nations, taking into account the opportunities that we found in all of our neighbours in our region, including in India, Indonesia and other South-East Asian countries. Prime Minister Gillard believed that Australia does not have to choose between the United States and China—that we can honour our treasured alliance with the United States and also be a friend to China.
With this strong and principled history of building the relationship, under our current leadership of Bill Shorten and his principled approach, it should come as no surprise that Labor supports Australia's involvement in this China-led initiative: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Of course, supporting the relationship and being a true friend does not mean that we should abdicate our responsibility to get the best deal for Australia in our dealings with our friend. For example, being a friend to China does not stop Labor from asking questions about trade deals and it does not prevent us from standing up for the national interest. So it is with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Like many others, I am a great enthusiast for greater trade with China, for reducing tariffs, for providing opportunities in the primary production sector and also for our highly skilled services sectors. I fervently wish to see more Chinese visitors in Australia, whether for holidays or to gain a great education. But that does not relieve me or anyone else in this place of the obligation to take seriously the ramifications for domestic jobs. It is not only right that we should ask questions about how labour and skills arrangements would work under a free trade agreement but it is also our obligation as representatives. Similarly, as representatives who believe in democracy and sovereignty, we should be asking questions about how investor-state dispute resolution will work and what that will mean for our nation. No-one need look further than the current plain-packaging case to be reminded of the importance of that issue. Calling us racist or xenophobic for asking these questions is not just aggressive, ridiculous and dangerous; it is completely divorced from Labor's historical context. It is Labor who have shown leadership in building ties and trade with China, and we will always do so.
The coalition's lack of nuance and their refusal to engage in mature discussion is deeply regrettable, but what else would we expect from a government who are more interested in fighting than in promoting the national interest? This government's paralysis is so profound that they have given the impression that our whole politics is broken. The Prime Minister is so short-sighted that he wants to call us racist rather than engage with us to work through our concerns and negotiate in the national interest. I hope for the sake of our country that this dinosaur of a Prime Minister, who thinks winning points against Labor is more important than governing, will soon be consigned to history.
The coalition's conduct in relation to the discussion about the effect of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement seems all the sillier when you reflect on the fact that they originally declined to join this great China-led initiative—the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In October last year, following division within the government—something all too familiar under this Prime Minister—Australia declined to sign up. At the time Paul Keating was scathing. He said:
The government's decision to decline founding membership of the Chinese-proposed Asian infrastructure bank is the worst policy decision the government has taken since assuming office.
That is a pretty big call. Of course, there are a lot of terrible policy decisions to choose from. Mr Keating went on to tell The Australian Financial Review:
It is the worst because of the far-reaching implications and consequences of deciding to have nothing geo-economically to do with China at a time when China is prepared to step up to greater responsibilities in the region.
Remember this was a few weeks before the G20, with Australia holding the presidency. We were claiming to stand for worldwide growth, but the government was dithering and divided over whether to join this bank, despite the economic development opportunities it offered.
At the time, Professor James Laurenceson, who is a Norman Park boy but is also the Deputy Director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, wrote:
… trying to make sense of rejecting the proposal on the basis of economic reasoning is nigh on impossible. In 2011 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimated Asia required US$750 billion each year through to 2020 to finance infrastructure needs. In 2012 the amount the ADB lent for infrastructure was just US$7.5 billion. It is no surprise that among the government ministers it was Treasurer Joe Hockey and Trade Minister Andrew Robb who were keen on Australia joining the AIIB.
What a shame it was that they were rolled at first instance and is it not pleasing that finally the right decision has been made and we have now agreed to sign on to the AIIB. Professor Laurenceson went on to say:
The decision to rebuff China’s invitation is awkward to say the least. Australia made reducing barriers to infrastructure investment a focal point of the G20 agenda. There is also the small matter of the memorandum of understanding the Australian and Chinese governments signed in 2012 on enhancing cooperation in infrastructure construction.
It was a highly perplexing and strange decision at the outset. As I said, we welcome the fact that after months of dithering and infighting with ministers disagreeing with each other, the Abbott government has agreed to formally sign up as a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We are among 50 of the 57 founding members who signed up on 29 July this year.
This new bank, as I said, will have significant Chinese equity but we will be one of the major shareholders. That is because Labor understands the potential that this bank has to contribute to infrastructure in our region. It is a shame Australia had to play catch up. Many of our friends in the region and beyond like New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, India and Singapore threw their support behind the bank well in advance of Australia doing so. It was a great shame that so much time was wasted as Abbott government ministers leaked against each other from cabinet and from the National Security Committee. There was an embarrassing display by the government but, now that has been dealt with, we hope that the government will engage constructively on the priorities for the bank and work to ensure robust transparency and accountability arrangements.
Labor has been saying for months that we should support the establishment of this bank. By contrast, there was total mishandling by the Abbott government. For Australia to chart its course in this world, for us to maintain our history as a nation that leads the fight for a better world, we must embrace a vision that actually looks beyond our own borders and looks at how we can make a contribution to our globe and to our region. We are a wealthy country. Under the last Labor government, we came out of the Global Financial Crisis as the 12th largest economy in the world because of the work that was done. We had a AAA credit rating. We had a strong economy. We are a nation that can perform well above what might be expected of a small nation of only 23 million people. We have traditionally done so well being part of the globe, being part of an international community that wants to see improvements in development, improvements in peace across the world. Being involved in multilateral organisations like this bank is an important part of the work that we do.
It is incredibly pleasing to support this bill, to support the contribution that our nation will make to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and also to see that the government has finally come to a position of being able to—albeit belatedly—agree to sign on as a founding member of the bank. I commend the bill to the House.
It is with great privilege that I rise to speak on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015. My very first trip overseas as a parliamentarian was to Papua New Guinea and Bougainville with the then opposition foreign affairs spokesperson, Julie Bishop. We were able to go up to Hides in the Highlands to see the magnificent infrastructure around the LNG projects and the work that was done, the sheer engineering skill that that project was able to bring into the country.
We then ventured over to Bougainville. It was when we were in Bougainville that building capacity and capability with aid really struck home to me. It was just after the Queensland state election when the Bruce Highway had been cut for about a week leaving Labor, Liberal and LNP banners and those sorts of things stranded on the side of the road that we travelled the road from Buka all the way round to Arawa. That road is maintained by what was then AusAID. We provide the jobs, we pay the people and we provide the equipment that grades that dirt road every year. The reasoning behind that was that if you build a bitumen road, it is good for a while but in equatorial regions and tropical regions potholes soon appear and it becomes problematic. A place like Lae is the pothole capital of the world.
What we decided in conjunction with the Bougainvillians was that we would provide the work to make sure that this road was graded every year. The road came up to streams that the Japanese had been in. Jane Prentice, the member for Ryan, told me that some of these streams flood so quickly that people are locked in for almost 48 hours, unable to cross. I said, 'I am from Townsville and we have just been isolated for seven days.' It was one of those things. The bridge was a single lane concrete bridge across a couple of these streams. It had a magnificent great big ceramic plaque saying it was donated to the people of Bougainville by the Japanese government. The Bouganvillians was so very proud of these bridges and so very thankful to the Japanese government for providing these bridges. They did not recognise the work that the Australian government did in relation to providing the road on which we travelled. It comes down to how you present and sell your achievements from your aid dollar.
We have to be very wise and we have to very frugal in the way we present our dollar. I think the way we are going to work the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB, is going to be a good way of making sure that, as a region, we are able to put this up there and therefore remove the temptation for some nations to put themselves out there as delivering for the people. What we could have done on that road was spend another million dollars putting up big signs with Johnathan Thurston from the North Queensland Cowboys saying, 'This is what the Australian government has delivered for you.' What AusAID did in those days was to deliver the service, and that was their role.
When we came to government, we brought AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs, because we need to be better at telling the people what we are doing and how we are doing it. Aid into these regions has to be twofold. There has to be capacity building for infrastructure and there has to be programs for education and health, and programs that help lift people out of poverty—that is crucial. Programs that deliver aid for education, health and physical wellbeing do not have so much room for 'corruption', for want of a better word. When there are massive infrastructure projects and massive projects like the rebuilding of ports and bridges, there is room where some people in some countries in some instances can rake some money off the top. That is what the AIIB must work against. Going in as an organisation will remove the temptation to try to do a better deal. It will ensure it is our infrastructure as opposed to Korea's infrastructure, the Philippines' infrastructure or China's infrastructure. If we do those things and do it as the bank, if we make sure it is the government of that sovereign nation delivering it for their people in a commercial capacity, then we will surely get a better result.
I congratulate Treasurer Joe Hockey for his ability to argue the case that we should join this. I think we are so much better inside the tent that outside the tent. We have to project this and use this in the region to try to build capacity in these nations and reduce the level of innate corruption. I do not like to use the word 'corruption', but I do not know a better word for it. If you are using these sorts of things to line your own pocket or structuring a tender into these countries where some people get more benefit than others then, for me, it is about corruption. It is not just about the ability for these countries to perform better. We must make sure it is a two-way street. If they get better facilities then they will be able to receive and process our goods quicker. If we are able to get the port in Lae, for example, to work better then all the goods coming in and out of Lae and Papua New Guinea will be transitioned so much quicker. It will be done so much better.
I see a bunch of schoolkids up in the gallery behind the glass. I say congratulations to them for coming to Canberra. What we are doing here with this, as well as with the China Australia Free Trade Agreement and the other free trade agreements, is about their future. It is about making sure that when they leave school, they will have the ability to enter these markets. Because we live in Australia and we are geographically isolated does not mean we cannot provide services, access and value into these regions. That is what this place is all about. As a parliament, we have to make sure that we do get into this space, that we are aggressive when it comes to being a member of this. We have committed $930-odd million in capital over the next five years to be a part of this bank.
I live in Townsville in North Queensland. The closest capital city to Townsville is not Brisbane. The closest capital city to Townsville is Port Moresby. My region includes the Solomon Islands, a nation which is coming out as a result of what is surely the greatest piece of foreign policy that this parliament has seen in many, many decades—the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. They now have a functioning police force, a women's chamber of commerce, more infrastructure on the way, a budget in surplus and economic growth at about seven or eight per cent—albeit from a low base. You can see all these positive things now. That is what Australia has been able to provide in that space.
Looking at the Asia-Pacific region, there are massive challenges but there are also massive opportunities for us. There are massive opportunities for Australian companies to engage in this space. There are massive opportunities for Australians to participate in the tender process and become part of the supply chain in this space. There are massive opportunities for us to say that we care about our region. As part of this development bank, we will ensure that we are delivering to our region. There is a competitive edge that allows some countries in some instances to provide infrastructure that may not be necessary or superfluous to need, or to supply infrastructure for a benefit other than for the benefit of the people. Those are the things that we have to make sure about.
As foundation members of this bank, we will be able to provide support and help with the policy and tender settings and processes, and we will end up with a better result. Our aid dollar will get a better result into these regions. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be able to provide the solid, physical infrastructure to those countries and it will be the country that will deliver it with finance, and then we will be able to deliver the aid in the form of programs which will lift education levels. Education is the secret to everything. If you get a good education, you can get better health. If you get a good education, you can build the things yourself. If you get a good education, you can get better off financially. If you get a good education, you lift the whole country. That is what we must do in our region.
We have some very big challenges in our region with the likes of poverty, domestic violence, type 2 diabetes and climate change. We have some very real issues. What we have to do is make sure that we are addressing those issues. What we have to do is make sure that, wherever possible, we are addressing the whole issue not just part of it. I welcome our position as a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I welcome Joe Hockey's commitment to this. I think he has done a fantastic job to get the government to become a partner in this. I think we are so much better for being part of this and for being part of something that is going to be at the forefront of our region's development. I think it is something that we can do. If we can badge it properly, it will be a magnificent part of my region's economy.
At the end of the day, there are 149 people in this room here—not right now, but when it is full—and we all come here with self-interest and with the interests of our seat, our city, our region and our country. What I want to do is make sure that we are projecting a positive image in our region, that we are projecting a proactive image into our region and that we are extending a helping hand into our region to make sure we are able to lift all boats and help all peoples deliver the kind of infrastructure that means they can all have the kinds of lives they want to have in those countries. This is a great bill. I want to make sure that we support this. I thank the House very much.
Machiavelli once noted the importance of making the right decisions at the right times. He said: 'Tardiness often robs us of opportunity and the dispatch of our forces'. The Italian philosopher was of course talking about military affairs. But being in the right place at the right time is just as important when it comes to making big economic decisions. That is why I was concerned that, when the Chinese government first proposed the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank late in 2013, the government dithered; it obfuscated. Mired as it is in internal division, the government mucked about for months before committing itself to what should have been seen as a policy no-brainer.
Australia is a part of Asia. We trade with Asia. It is absolutely in Australia's interests that the nations of our region have efficient infrastructure, are able to grow and have higher living standards. If these nations have efficient ports and distribution systems, it is all the better for our exporters, not to mention Australian companies that are involved in the Australian infrastructure market. We must do everything we can to remove infrastructure bottlenecks, particularly in fast developing nations like China and India. That is because fewer bottlenecks means easier movement of Australian goods into these markets.
It is also fundamentally because of this that we should support the lifting up out of poverty of everyone, regardless of where they, through an accident of birth, live. And infrastructure is a key to economic growth and development. Australia has a responsibility to play a role in our region, as well as throughout the world. If we play that positive role, in the end it is good for them; but it is also good for our national interest. It is clear that our trading relationship with the nations of our region is expanding. That provides massive opportunities. But, if the opportunities are not able to be realised, then of course our economic growth will be smaller than it would have been otherwise. So that is why we are very supportive of the government's decision—belated though it was—to sign up to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
I must say, it is consistent with the approach that Labor has had from the beginning when we supported this initiative. Indeed, in government we laid groundwork for cooperation between Australia and the Chinese government when it comes to infrastructure. In December 2011, I visited China and had discussions with my counterparts about how we could improve the cooperation on infrastructure between our two great nations. That led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding, here in Canberra on 10 April 2012. The MOU on enhancing cooperation in infrastructure construction was signed by me, as the Minister for Infrastructure, and by the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Mr Chen Deming, at a function here in Parliament House.
This MOU means closer cooperation on planning of projects, exchanging information on investment opportunities and technical expertise, training and education, joint conferences as well as joint infrastructure projects in the future. In the end, it is about creating more jobs, tapping more economic opportunities and delivering better infrastructure in both Australia and China. As a result of that a working group was established, with membership from government departments and agencies, industry organisations and financial and business partners to help implement the commitments outlined in the MOU, which were of course a prelude to the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People's Republic of China.
This was a particularly important initiative which grew out of Gough Whitlam's historic mission to China as the leader of the Australian Labor Party. The coming to office of the Whitlam government meant that that was put into practice with that recognition. At the time, the two-way trade between Australia and China was $113 million. Today it is well over the $100 billion mark. That is an example of the benefit that can be got from Australia having an enhanced relationship in our region.
As a minister I was very pleased to make four visits to Indonesia to promote the Indonesian Transport Safety Assistance package between Australia and Indonesia. This was a Howard government initiative commenced towards the end of its term in office. We continued and, indeed, extended it. It was very important—we had an MOU on transport cooperation between Australia and Indonesia that I signed on 15 December 2010—and has led to a great deal of cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in road infrastructure, in the operation of their airports and in the maritime sector, particularly with regard to maritime safety. It has been a major benefit.
Last month I attended meetings in Hong Kong. One was with the Australian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. This is the largest chamber of commerce outside of Australia. It plays an absolutely critical role in promoting Australian business interests not just in Hong Kong but also into mainland China and, indeed, the entire region. There were more than 30 Australian business interests at the meeting, and afterwards I was taken by Boyd Merrett and Paul Freeman of Leighton Contractors to have a look at the work they were doing, providing leadership as Australian businesspeople, in extending the rail line, the metro network, to the south of Hong Kong Island. I had a practical look at the engineering challenges that are there. The work they are doing is of great benefit of course to the people of Hong Kong. The fact that we have that Australian presence there is also of great benefit here in Australia.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank provides opportunities not just in terms of the finance sector but also for Australia to increase our engagement in the infrastructure sector in the region in an absolutely vital way. Australia's total shareholding in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be US$3.7 billion, comprising US$738 million in paid-up capital. It will be paid in five equal annual payments, starting from when Australia ratifies the articles. There will be zero direct impact on the underlying cash balance, fiscal balance and net debt, as using cash to purchase shares represents a change in the composition of the Australian government's assets. It is an investment rather than an expenditure. The creation of the bank is expected to boost infrastructure investment in our region by more than $100 billion. That provides an opportunity through the growth of that infrastructure market for Australian firms to benefit directly.
We hope the government will engage constructively on priorities for the bank and will work to ensure that robust transparency and accountability arrangements are put in place. Not only will this institution assist growth in our neighbourhood in terms of Asian nations; it will also open up opportunities for our infrastructure providers like construction companies, engineers and accountants. Many Australian companies are already active in this area. I have pointed out the change that was made in China with the MOU on cooperation, but wherever you go in the region—whether it be China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan or anywhere else—there is a very strong Australian business presence. The presence of Australian businesses is particularly important.
Another opportunity we have is that, because of our strong legal framework and support for the rule of law and proper business practice, Australia can provide international companies with a base for their operations in the region. Certainly, that is what a number of companies based in Europe have done. For example, growth has occurred in the presence of companies here. I have visited the headquarters of Bouygues, a French-based company, outside of Paris and discussed with their senior executives about them establishing a presence in Australia. Ghella, an Italian company, participated in the Italian infrastructure delegation that visited the parliament here in November 2012, which was led by the Italian Secretary of State, Mr Staffan de Mistura. That was the largest ever delegation from Italy to visit our shores. This extremely successful delegation resulted from my invitation when I visited Italy and met with Confidustria, the industry body that provides such an important leadership role in Italy. Major companies such as Ansaldo, Ghella and MERMEC are already playing a key role, and those companies played a key role here in construction of the South Road Superway and the Legacy Way tunnel in Brisbane. Importantly, by having a presence here and using that as a base into the Asian region, we can benefit in a big way in terms of infrastructure development and boosting our economy.
So I commend the government for getting there in the end and supporting this initiative. I say to the government that they should do a little bit more building and a little bit less talking about infrastructure, and it is a pity that the budget in 2015 had $2 billion in cuts this year and next when it comes to infrastructure. Two years on from the government being elected with a commitment that within one year there would be cranes in the sky of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and other capital cities on new projects, in fact none of them have begun. Indeed, the government have been good at reopening projects or claiming projects that were initiated by the former government. What they have not been good at is initiating new projects and getting them going, which is why infrastructure investment has actually fallen under this government.
I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015, is necessary for Australia to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
In our region, Asia faces a major infrastructure financing gap, estimated to be worth US$8 trillion this decade. By becoming a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank we are taking a significant step to address this financial gap and to position Australia to take advantage of the opportunities to come from infrastructure development in Asia.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will provide trade and economic opportunities for Australian businesses and help our commodity exports, using its authorised capital base of US$100 billion to help address the infrastructure needs of the Asia-Pacific. With the bank to become operational from late 2015, Australian companies will be able to bid for AIIB-financed projects, with the AIIB's open procurement model. It will have an early focus on transport, energy and water infrastructure, and will later invest in ports, logistics, environmental protection, information and communications technology, and agriculture.
Australia's prosperity and economic growth are tied closely to Asia, with improved infrastructure throughout Asia also providing greater opportunities for Australian trade and businesses. With a growing pipeline of infrastructure projects, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will likely see an increased demand for Australian commodities and services, such as engineering, construction management, finance and consultancy.
Improved infrastructure, such as new ports and railways in AIIB member countries like India and Indonesia, also means that Australia's exports can reach new or expanding markets. Greater levels of infrastructure means Australian businesses can capitalise on new and expanded commercial opportunities by meeting increased demand arising from stronger economic growth driven by new infrastructure. For example, building port facilities in India could provide extra capacity for Australian commodity exporters; constructing a railway in Indonesia will help to transport Australian agricultural products to market; and Australian consultants and fund managers could be designing and co-financing a toll road project in Laos.
More broadly, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank presents an opportunity to further strengthen Australia's engagement with the region, including with our biggest trading partner, China, and deepen our relationship with other member countries including New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Vietnam.
Australia will contribute US$738.3 million, around A$932 million, paid-in capital to the bank over five years. Importantly, this will make Australia the sixth largest shareholder of the bank, putting us in a prime position to influence the bank's decisions and strategic direction. We will work with China and other bank members to establish a bank that is effective, accountable and transparent and that complements the work of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will boost economic growth, create jobs and promote trade in our region by financing much-needed infrastructure, and it is important that Australia involve itself so that we too can take advantage of the opportunities that it presents.
I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor's position is to support the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, which extends the time that bank accounts and life insurance policies can be inactive before they are transferred to the government from three years to seven years. The principle behind unclaimed money legislation is that customers do not benefit if their savings are eaten away by fees and charges when they are left sitting in a bank for years. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, in 2014 Australian banks collected over $1 billion in fees from household deposit accounts. We do not want to see bank profits rising simply because Australian savings are shrinking.
When we made this change in 2012, we also determined the Australian government should pay interest on unclaimed money for the first time. Paying interest on the money held for safekeeping protects the value of those savings by ensuring they are not diminished by inflation. Right now, a standard transaction account with one of the big four banks is paying 0.1 per cent interest. Thanks to Labor's decision, accounts held by ASIC are earning interest at a rate linked to the consumer price index. That means that those bank accounts are better off, even before fees and charges, as a result of being held by ASIC. We are also aware that fees and charges can significantly erode accounts. Stories of fees and charges amounting to up to $100 a year have been heard in the past, and that is why unclaimed money legislation exists.
It is important to get the balance right, of course, between protecting the value of people's savings and ensuring that accounts are not claimed incorrectly. Treasury consulted on this issue in 2014, and a majority of the submissions supported a lengthening of the time frame for declaring accounts inactive. Some suggested it should be extended from three years to five years, some from three years to seven years. Labor is always willing to be guided by expertise and feedback from those who work most closely with Australian banking customers. It is vital that we recognise that, for all the schoolyard talk of 'trousering', what we are debating here is the correct duration after which unclaimed money should be moved into ASIC. No-one in this House, I expect, will be arguing that the unclaimed money legislation should be repealed entirely. The question is whether the time frame ought to be three years or seven years, and Labor will support the decision to change that time frame from three years to seven years.
More broadly, Labor wants to see Australians get a fair deal with their banking. That is what motivated the changes to the unclaimed money rules in 2012. It is what has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to recently call for an inquiry into disproportionately high credit card fees. The gap between the two per cent official interest rate set by the Reserve Bank of Australia and credit card interest rates of around 20 per cent is near its highest level ever. This 18 percentage point spread has doubled over the past 25 years and continues to widen. The government's top economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary John Fraser, RBA Deputy Governor Malcolm Edey, APRA Chairman Wayne Byres and ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell have all stated that this growing gap is an issue that needs to be investigated. Research from Swinburne University showed that, over the past 23 years, an average of 112 per cent of cash rate rises were passed on to credit card customers but only 53 per cent of rate cuts were. As author Abbas Valadkhani puts it, credit card rates 'go up like a rocket and fall like a feather'.
We do not only want to make sure that Australians avoid unreasonable fees and charges at the bank; Labor also is fighting to protect the Australian people from unfair costs imposed by the Abbott government. We have opposed an unfair GP co-payment, $100,000 degrees and a 15 per cent GST as an unfair tax on the cost of living. Increasing the GST to 15 per cent would see the poorest Australians paying 11 per cent of their income, while the richest would pay less than eight per cent. That would be at odds with what the Prime Minister said before the election, when he said, 'The GST does not change, full stop, end of story.' Similar comments were made by the now Prime Minister on 33 separate occasions before the election. Now, when asked to rule out increasing the GST, the Prime Minister, instead, replies, 'Well, what I'm not going to do is rule out a sensible conversation about a better tax system.'
Australians are increasingly feeling that Mr Abbott's list of promises of things that he would not do is instead turning into a to-do list for things that he will do. Cuts to hospitals, cuts to schools, cuts to the pensions, cuts to the ABC and SBS, and increasing the GST—there is only one thing on that list that has not been done and that is the increase to the GST. We have had an $80 billion cut in funding to schools and hospitals—a cut that was aimed at forcing states and territories to make an argument for an increase in the GST.
The Abbott government is already taxing Australians at higher levels than at any time since the big-spending Howard government—with tax receipts rising each and every year over the budget forward estimates. Labor has been deeply concerned that, since the Abbott government came to office, we have seen a steady trend downwards in annual growth—almost trending downwards in train with the Prime Minister's popularity ratings. Every quarter since the Abbott government's first budget was brought down, we have seen a downgrade in growth. There was nearly three per cent annual growth in the March 2014 quarter. There was below two per cent annual growth in the most recent figures. Unemployment has increased from 5.7 to 6.3 per cent and is now at its highest level in 13 years. We have got consumer sentiment 11 percentage points below where it was at the election and the budget deficit doubled in just the last 12 months.
We know that we need to get growth above three per cent if we are to see unemployment trending downwards rather than upwards. But, while we have got anaemic growth sitting at two per cent or potentially worse—given that the last quarter's figure was only positive as a result of a one-off blip in defence procurement—we know that that is not enough growth to secure a lower unemployment rate rather than a higher unemployment rate. Before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, said:
… I believe that the Coalition I lead understands all of this in the marrow of its bones and that's why I am confident that should there be a change of government later in the year, there will be an instantaneous adrenaline charge in our economy.
But that adrenaline charge has far from been delivered. Instead, we have unemployment going up and confidence going down, and debt going up and the standing of the Australian government in boardrooms around the nation going down. The figures that should be rising are falling, and the figures that should be falling are rising. We had the Treasurer saying that returning the budget to surplus had 'an inescapable moral dimension'.
Before the election, we were told that the budget would be back in surplus in the first year and in every subsequent year after that. Earlier this year, though, Steve Austin, on ABC Brisbane, asked the Treasurer:
What’s the higher priority, delivering personal income tax cuts or returning the Budget to surplus?
The member for North Sydney said:
Well, it's both, Steve.
Steve Austin then asked:
But which is the priority, though?
And the member for North Sydney replied:
We’ve got to try and do both. They’re not mutually exclusive.
So what was to be a moral imperative of returning the budget to surplus has now seen net debt increasing from its levels in the low teens when the government took office to now being projected to peak at 18 per cent of GDP. So the deficit is up and debt is up. If they were driving debt trucks around the country when they were in opposition, they should have debt ocean liners now.
This suggestion that we can return to surplus now finds itself following the almost comical suggestion from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister that there ought to be personal income tax cuts of some $5 billion or $6 billion a year, but with no plan to fund those personal income tax cuts. Bluff and bluster does not balance the budget. We have a Treasurer who has claimed that his own electorate is the home of bulk-billing in Australia when we know that it rates 126th out of 150 electorates; a Treasurer who, while the rest of the world is moving and embracing the growth and jobs benefits of renewable energy, describes the wind turbines around Lake George as 'utterly offensive' and a 'blight on the landscape'; a Treasurer who says that the GP co-payment of $7 is just a couple of middies of bear; and a Treasurer who, before his first budget, confessed to his authorised biographer, Madonna King, that he wanted to cut harder and cut earlier.
While it is absolutely vital for treasurers to get their numbers right, we have a Treasurer who instead exaggerates the tax paid by higher income households, saying that they pay half their income in tax; whereas, in fact, the highest marginal tax rate is 49c—but only for incomes over $180,000. The suggestion that pensioners are made better off by halving the pension by mid-century is not one that has received universal acclaim from groups like the Council on the Ageing and ACOSS. The idea that poor people do not drive cars suggests a Treasurer who is a fantastically out of touch with the Australian people, as does the proposal that, if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it—a logic which can equally be applied to diamond encrusted iPhone covers and any other unaffordable item that you would like to mention.
We have a government with a lack of long-term vision and perspective that has instead moved into the very dangerous territory of playing partisan politics when they are overseas.
The member for Fraser is nearly speaking to the bill—nearly.
Thank you for the reminder, Deputy Speaker.
And he is setting the pattern for the rest of the debate.
The confidence with which the government approaches the unclaimed money bill is not matched with the confidence that we see when the Treasurer is overseas in discussions with his Chinese counterparts. We know from his comments on ABC AMthis morning that he was going into those conversations trash talking the Australian union movement and the Australian opposition. The government likes to talk about 'team Australia', but it is hardly team Australia to take your partisan games into an international conversation with our largest trading partner. That is dangerous politics and bad economics, and it signifies so much why the Australian people have lost confidence in this Treasurer and in this government. We need a government with a clear economic plan, with a vision for jobs and growth and with an understanding that the science, technology, engineering and maths jobs of the future need to be underpinned by investment in education—not by cuts, cuts and more cuts.
Labor will be supporting this bill, but we continue, as do the Australian people, to have deep reservations about the economic agenda of this government.
Here we are yet again fixing up yet another Labor policy disaster. We have ended the carbon tax and we have ended the mining tax. Now the coalition government is reversing Labor's shambolic attempt to fleece hundreds of millions of dollars from the bank accounts of hardworking Australians. This bill, the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, reverses the former Labor government's changes to unclaimed monies provisions made back in 2012. Labor's changes reduced the threshold at which funds were transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission from seven years to three years.
If ever there was a case study in what not to do when formulating public policy then this is it. To truly appreciate just how appallingly this policy was handled by Labor in government I recommend revisiting Hansard from October and November 2012, when this bill was first introduced. It was introduced to the parliament after 5 pm on a Tuesday and then brought on for debate at 10 am the next day—which, fittingly, considering the appalling ramifications of this bill, was Halloween. There was no committee scrutiny. There was no consultation with the opposition and, more embarrassingly in that hung parliament, there was no consultation with the crossbench. In memorably awkward scenes, it was left to the then member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott, and the member for Melbourne to point out to the Gillard government that, friends though they were, they were not inclined to support a bill that they had not had a chance to read. When even the Greens think a revenue-raising measure is a bit extreme, it is probably the time to take another look at it. So debate was adjourned while Labor grudgingly trudged off to consult with affected stakeholders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that industry stakeholders were not happy with being given no notice and very little time to react to the proposed changes. Organisations such as the Australian Bankers Association, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Association of Financial Advisers all suggested that three years was too short a period of inactivity to deem an account unclaimed. Of course, Labor ignored these objections and pushed on with the bill. But, strangely, when the bill came back on for debate a few weeks later, not a single Labor backbencher spoke in support of the bill. What were they afraid of? If this was such good policy, as suggested by the member for Oxley in introducing the bill, why did they stay silent.
We here in the coalition tried our best to warn Labor about this bill. Speaker after speaker urged Labor to reconsider. In my own speech back then I made mention of the unintended consequences of this bill—that Labor would be inadvertently taking the accounts of people who have been saving money for travel and for university and who have been putting money away for a rainy day. I urged Labor to withdraw the bill in order to facilitate further discussion and consultation.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member for Ryan will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed at a later hour.
It is a big day today. Today the Abbott government turns two, and hasn't it been a terrific two years? The deficit is up. Debt is up. Unemployment is up. Taxes are up. The number of flags at press conferences is up. They have cut $30 billion from schools. They have cut $50 billion from hospitals. Last year they tried to cut the pension. They also tried to introduce a tax to go to the doctor. This year they are still trying to jack up the cost of university degrees. They declared war on wind farms and the ABC. And they have even doubled the cost of their second-rate version of the NBN
But that is not the best of it: the Attorney General George Brandis told us that 'people have a right to be bigots'. The Treasurer Joe Hockey told us that 'poor people don't drive cars'. The Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce threatened to kill Johnny Depp's dogs—poor old Pistol and Boo. Prince Philip got a knighthood. The Speaker got a helicopter. And the Prime Minister ate an onion—or two—apparently. What a cracking government we have got here.
You know that taste you get when you bite into an onion? That taste is the taste that has been in the back of the mouths of the people of Australia for the last two years, having to put up with this hopeless, hapless, divided, backward-looking government.
The voice of onion eating is exposed on the other side of politics. The strawberry festival now known as RedFest was held last weekend. If you can talk about too much of a good thing, half a tonne of strawberries was consumed—that must come very, very close. A long history, one of the longest Australian outer metropolitan festivals, RedFest was a huge success once again.
It goes right back to 1958, the home of Bill Airey, to raise money for the local school of arts hall and was later moved to Victoria Point when there was a glut of strawberries—that is the kind of glut you want. The RedFest has continued ever since with great acts on the Saturday night.
It is probably most famous for the world-renowned strawberry-eating competition. I will say as a local: don't try it as a politician—the images they snap are not consistent with re-election, particularly strawberries and cream.
On less of a festival note and more to the future, the universities of the future are one day finding their way to Redlands. Congratulations to ACMA and Airservices Australia for divesting themselves of two significant parcels of land, communicating directly as their legislation allows them to both the state government and our local Redland City Council about freeing this land up for community use and potentially something very special within Brisbane—that is, another university campus within 30 minutes of our city centre.
It has been a nine-year campaign. I congratulate both authorities for assiduously getting us to this point. I wish Mayor Karen Williams and the Redland City Council ever success in bringing this project to fruition.
by leave—I present a petition of 145 signatures from Hilltop Road Public School. A number of weeks ago four extraordinary young students from the Hilltop Road Public School came to see me in my office and asked me to raise the issue of caged chickens in this House. I do so today in their words in a letter to me of 23 July. They said:
Dear Ms Owens
My name is Rakaya Ghamrawi and along with Ariona Haxhijaj and Eli Dean we are known as the CC Chickens. We go to Hilltop Road Public School and are in the 6th grade and we are doing a PBL project (Project Base Learning) on 'Is The Law Fair'. The topic we thought of doing is caged chickens because the information we found on caged chickens and the effects that happen are very traumatising and hurtful, mainly because of the space they have (which is the space of an original Ipad as the floor space …
They went on:
We thought that if-this-beeame-a law that all caged chickens must be free range in a non-polluted environment because, not only would it effect the chickens but if we eat the chickens that carry diseases that are stuck in cages, we may also get sick.
We would also like them to be free range because over 90% of the eggs sold in Australia are from caged chickens, which is a very big concern to us.
The reason why I am contacting you is because my group and I would really appreciate it if you take this idea to parliament and present this matter of concern on our behalf.
Thank you, Hilltop Road Public School.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
I recently opened my new Sarina office to support the Sarina and western districts of Capricornia. This is the first time a federal MP's office has been based in Sarina. This was an election commitment, and opening this office proves I am listening and delivering to my northern constituents.
I fight for many things in this area, including a better deal for our sugar sector in their marketing row with Wilmar and on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
A new mobile phone base tower has also been achieved to improve mobile communication at Gargett; and $166 million funding to fix the Eton Range. This area has significant economic activity from coal port terminals to sugar. I fight for both sectors to strengthen and return more jobs to the region.
I voice continued support for future water infrastructure projects, including Connors River Dam between Sarina and Moranbah, and Urannah Dam south of Collinsville.
Federal Senators James McGrath and Matthew Canavan joined me to officially launch my Sarina office on Friday evening as well as the retired state member for Mirani, Ted Malone, and Jason Costigan, the member for Whitsunday. I am pleased industry leaders, including the chair Kevin Borg and CEO Kerry Latter of CANEGROWERS Mackay, hailed the new Sarina office a boost for the region.
Many people depend on trains to travel to Melbourne to see specialists or receive treatment. There is huge inconvenience if the train runs late or, worse still, is cancelled or becomes a bus. It causes great stress and inconvenience. Adding to this stressful situation is the fact it can take months before another appointment can be rescheduled.
On Monday morning, 31 August, Wodonga resident Jackie Partridge and her son Nathan were left stranded at Chiltern when the 6.35 am train from Albury to Melbourne broke down. Nathan had an appointment at the Royal Melbourne Dental Hospital. Buses to replace the service were at over an hour away. Jackie says that next time, they will have to travel to Melbourne the day before to get there in time for the doctor.
The V/Line rolling stock absolutely needs to be replaced with new carriages and engines. The people of north-east Victoria cannot afford to continue with this deplorable state of affairs. These trains and locos are past their use-by date. They are limping towards a replacement date that remains unknown. People in north-east Victoria absolutely deserve better transport infrastructure. I call on the Commonwealth government to take really seriously and support the Victorian government to meet Indi and northern Victoria's needs, using the Victorian regional network development plan to come up with a business plan to replace our rolling stock and give us a transport service we can rely on. (Time expired)
I had the opportunity last week to attend Santa Sabina College at Strathfield. It is a special school because I am an old boy of that school, as are my brother and two sisters—not that I think they would have me on their front web page advertising that fact! But I attended to present a flag and congratulate them on a wonderful local initiative. They have put together a choir of 26 students, parents and teachers, and from 18 September to 1 October they will head to Italy, the home of Nola Marino's family, for half a dozen performances, culminating in a final appearance at the Vatican, which for a Catholic college like Santa Sabina holds obvious special place.
The list of surnames is far too long for me to go through, but I would like to wish Katherine, Sabina, Antoinette, Sophie, Claire, Courtney, Georgia, Jessie, Dominique, Anna-Rosa, Isabella, Angela, Linda, Natalie, Charlotte, Juliet, Mariahna, Michelle, Sara, Isabella, Sally, Marcella, Maria, Ellen, Sarah and Kristina not only safe travels but great performances. To Marie Hewett and the team at Santa Sabina: it makes me very proud as an old boy in a family that has been intertwined with your school's history to see you take such great initiatives, giving these girls such an amazing opportunity and allowing them to share it with their parents and their teachers.
Last week was Adult Learners' Week. Adult learning is an issue very close to my heart, so I was very pleased to be able to present the REACH Awards at Griffith University's Logan campus. The REACH Awards recognise people who have reconnected with the education system, often in the face of very serious and substantial obstacles, so I wanted to congratulate the recipients of the awards here in the House of Representatives and acknowledge all of the partners who helped make that possible. I wanted to pay tribute to Di Marny, Anja Roberts, Lesley Chenoweth and all the good people at Griffith University.
The power of adult education was neatly encapsulated in two stories told in a great night. The first one was Pip Giles. Pip Giles had the courage to tell the story of her own university journey, including a GPA that would put the rest of us to shame. John Danalis, the author, also shared his own remarkable experiences, which have also been recorded in the great novel Riding the Black Cockatoo.
In our community one person's success makes the rest of us all walk a little bit taller, so I wanted to thank the adult learners, who enrich us and our community with all of their efforts in the education system.
The Harvey Bulls Football Club has a proud history, winning premierships in league and reserves in the Peel Football League. This proud history was added to yesterday when the club won its first-ever elimination finals game in its seven years since joining the South West Football League. This is a huge achievement given that Harvey has a small population of around 5,500 people. Simply being able to field three sides each week is a win in itself for a small rural and regional football club. As a result of a lack of numbers, often our colts and reserves cop a hiding, but they front up week after week to help out their mates in the club.
I want to congratulate rookie league coach Paul Fimmano and our courageous players, led by co-captains Josh Krispyn and Ryan Mooney. The players fought a true grassroots football battle on Sunday. The lead fluctuated, and it was a grinding fight to the end.
The whole club, from President Joe Rognetta to the committee, members, trainers, our volunteers and the local small business sponsors, deserve this win. They are dedicated, good people who work almost all year round to continue to offer opportunity and social interaction in our small community through AFL football. I know the whole team will get behind the Bulls as they take on their next opponents.
I also thank the Prime Minister for taking time out last night to congratulate club stalwart Michael 'Beaver' Zappia on the club's historic win. Beaver is a life member and past president and was a gutsy player in his time. Congratulations to everyone at the Harvey Bulls Football Club.
I rise in the chamber this afternoon to make the House aware of an event that occurred in my electorate across the break. On 27 August I was pleased to officially launch the School Lawyer Project. It is believed to be the first formalised project in collaboration between the Western Community Legal Services and The Grange P-12 College.
Access to justice is so important, and in this community it is now assured, with Vincent Shin appointed as the practising lawyer to work in the school. The program began in June, and he has already assisted students and their families with a variety of legal processes, resolving workplace issues, immigration assistance, problems with Centrelink, issues related to insurance claims, rental tenancy and homelessness issues, and occasionally a police matter. He is also running workshops with students and parents on their legal obligations and their legal rights.
This is a fabulous program. I would like to congratulate David Smilie and his staff from The Grange College; Denise Nalthorpe, Shona Moore and Renee from the Western Community Legal Centre; the numerous philanthropic groups that are providing the funding; and especially Vince Shin, the first school lawyer in Australia, we believe, for their hard work in pulling this fabulous project together. I also thank the philanthropic organisations that have made this possible.
Recently I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the Great Blue Mountains Trail at Medlow Bath. The extension and upgrade of the 13.2-kilometre trail was made possible under round 2 of the government's Regional Development Australia Fund. The important project was also achieved through the hard work of 10 people who were involved in the project for six months under the Work for the Dole program. The federal government contributed $500,000 and the Blue Mountains City Council contributed $60,000 to the trail, which will provide safe cycling facilities and a safe walking track connecting residents and tourists. The trail links the smaller towns of Blackheath and Medlow Bath to Katoomba and provides a corridor for the natural, beautiful bushland and of course our precious flora and fauna.
It was great to hear that two of the participants have secured full-time work from the experience. It shows how programs such as these can be of huge benefit to the community through the upgrade or creation of infrastructure and facilities while providing experience and opportunities for those involved. I had the pleasure of speaking with a couple of Work for the Dole program participants at the opening, and they made it clear that they felt they had succeeded. They were proud of what they had achieved, and they said that taking part in the project had given them motivation and confidence and they felt they were a step closer to securing work. The government's Work for the Dole program will deliver $18 million over four years to assist around 6,000 job seekers annually.
I rise today to speak about last week's Legacy Week, the national appeal to raise awareness and funds for the families of our injured and deceased veterans. I was away for most of the week, for the Australian Defence Force parliamentary exchange program at the 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment, with my colleague the member for Perth—the 'GI Geraldines', as we are called—but more on that in another speech. I flew back late on Thursday and first thing Friday was out selling Legacy badges at Woden Westfield. A number of people I approached had already bought a badge, and, if they had not, many bought one from me. It was fantastic to see old and young people supporting Legacy Week, sending our veterans and their families a clear message that we care and we will be there for you.
Legacy Week began in 1942, and the funds raised over the years have helped Legacy assist around 90,000 widows and close to 2,000 children and people with disabilities Australia wide. The funds raised during the week help Legacy provide essential services as such as counselling, special housing, medical services, advocacy and social support. It is a historic and wonderful appeal, and I thank and acknowledge all those involved. In particular, I want to thank Peter Ellerman and Neil Horn, who were coordinating the efforts in Woden. I also want to acknowledge the boys from Marist College, who were also selling badges in Woden. Thanks, Canberra, for your support of this wonderful appeal.
I rise today to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of women in the New South Wales Police Force. This year the New South Wales Police Force celebrates 100 years of women in policing, in what marks a significant milestone for the force. In the course of the past 100 years, work conditions for women in policing have changed dramatically. In 1915 Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes were the first two female officers to join the New South Wales Police Force. It took half a century from when Lillian and Maude joined for women to gain full status as officers in the force, thereby entitling them to superannuation and pension benefits.
I am glad to say that in 2015 the culture and conditions for policewomen are completely unrecognisable from what they were in 1915. Nowadays women can work in any section of the Police Force as long as they have the necessary determination and aptitude, and Campbelltown LAC is no exception, with women working in every section, ranging from probationary constables to chief inspectors. In total, Campbelltown LAC currently has 85 sworn and non-sworn female staff, which works out to be roughly 50 per cent of their total staff—a remarkable achievement.
Last month, Campbelltown Local Area Command celebrated 100 years of women in policing at Lithgow Street Mall, which had displays and personnel on show, and the Campbelltown Rotary Club put on a barbecue, with a gold coin donation that went towards the Campbelltown Domestic Violence Committee, who do a fantastic job. I would like to congratulate everybody involved in this landmark event, but most importantly I would like to thank Chief Inspector Meg Grady and all the women at Campbelltown Local Area Command for their hard work and dedication in keeping Campbelltown safe and secure for our community.
Today I rise to acknowledge the Bendigo community and the local traders who got behind the Eat.Drink.Shop Bendigo campaign that we held last weekend. It was an opportunity for people to get out and eat, drink and shop and buy local. We felt we needed to encourage people back into our CBD because of what had occurred in Bendigo on the previous weekend. The previous weekend our local traders lost a lot of trade. Our local businesses suffered big losses because our town was effectively on shutdown. For safety reasons, the Police and the local council closed major roads around our town hall. They did so because the United Patriots Front, the radical right, and the radical left decided that Bendigo would be the latest backdrop for their running battles about their issues, whether they be about building a mosque or whether they be about racism in this country. Like all people, I condemn in the loudest possible terms violence and hate speech, and what occurred in Bendigo over that weekend was not Australian. Bendigo, like the rest of Australia, is inclusive and welcomes everyone. We do not welcome the violence and we say, 'Do not come back if you continue to wage your battles in our town in this manner.' Whilst the loss of trade hurt, the energy of last weekend cannot go unrecognised. I would like to acknowledge the role of local media in promoting Eat.Drink.Shop Bendigo and the many locals who got behind the campaign.
I rise to share with the House a local small businesses success story in my electorate of Dobell. Family owned and operated, SpotGo recently burst onto the national scene with its new and exciting range of cleaning products. Brendan, Nancy and their staff have been working tirelessly since 2000 to build their small family business into the successful enterprise it is today. Located in idyllic surrounds and operating out of the family home, SpotGo's success story demonstrates what can happen when you have a strong foundation and drive to succeed. The SpotGo team's hard work has recently paid off, with the inclusion of their products in Woolworths stores around the Central Coast. Recently, at the invitation of SpotGo, I met with Woolworths representatives as SpotGo acknowledged Woolworths's efforts in assisting this Central Coast business gain national status. SpotGo products are also distributed through selected IGA stores. Brendan and Nancy are appreciative of the initiatives being implemented by this government and the positive outcomes the government has provided to small business. I would also like to pass on my very best to Brendan, Nancy and their team and wish them well as they continue to grow and become one of the many successful businesses on the Central Coast. Opportunities are also provided by the FTA with China, and they are looking at exporting into China, which will mean more jobs for Australians and locals on the Central Coast.
Last weekend I was out with Labor's fantastic local candidate for Canning, Matt Keogh. We saw the huge boom in housing and population in this area and we heard from punters about the enormous strain that this is placing on transport infrastructure. Residents and local authorities say that there are nine kilometres of gridlock during peak hour as residents in the dormitory suburbs along Armadale Road head for the job-rich destinations north on the Kwinana Freeway and the Mandurah railway line and west to the Kwinana industrial strip. This huge congestion crisis is impacting on the everyday lives of residents and is affecting the productivity of business.
Matt Keogh has successfully led the charge to secure a commitment from federal Labor to help fund the solution. Labor has committed $145 million to the Community Connect South project for the duplication of Armadale Road between Verde Drive and Anstey Road and the construction of the North Lake Road bridge, and that is half the total cost of the project. This is not a pledge just for the by-election but one that we will take into the general election next year.
The Abbott and Barnett Liberal governments have been incapable of making any commitment because they are pouring $2 billion into the most flawed and poorly planned project we have ever seen in Western Australia, the Perth Freight Link.
At about 1.40 pm on 6 August at the Landsdale Primary School early childhood annex, a fire started in a demountable classroom. Fortunately, the children were all evacuated safely, and I acknowledge the great work of teachers and staff who did such a great job that day. By 3 pm the fire brigade had extinguished the fire, and the staff were left to count the cost. All the children's work was lost and all the classroom equipment as well. It was a sad event, but of course the priority was that no-one was injured.
Following the fire, I am pleased that during the last sitting fortnight my staff and some of my volunteers went along to help cook the barbecue fundraiser that the staff and parents had organised at the school. I am also very pleased that last Saturday, between 7.45 am and 2 pm, I, my wife, Lara, my staff and two of my volunteers, Luke and Nicole, helped out with another barbecue fundraiser sponsored by and out the front of George's hardware store and Artistic Floral, down at the Landsdale Forum shopping centre. I am informed that $1,200 was raised to help replace the decorations and fittings of the classroom for the kindy children.
I would mainly, however, like to acknowledge the Landsdale kindy team of Felicity, Heather, Leonie and Nadine and also the many hardworking parents who cooked the food and looked after the raffle that day, led by the dedicated Melissa. I must also acknowledge the outstanding contribution of all the parents who baked cakes, cupcakes, slices and cookies. They sold very well through the day, and people even started arriving during the day asking specifically for Felicity Caratti's cupcakes. Congratulations to the Landsdale kindy staff, the whole team and parents for their outstanding work.
I congratulate the students, teachers, parents and staff of the Randwick Boys High School and the Randwick Girls High School, who recently performed their 25th annual arts extravaganza and Rock Eisteddfod. For the first 20 years of this period, the students from these two outstanding schools worked together on the Rock Eisteddfod, a national competition that combined dance, drama, music and stage production to tell a story and depict a concept or theme.
The Randwick Rock Eisteddfod team had astounding success performing items such as Othello, To Kill A Mockingbird and Tank Girl. In fact, they became the most successful school in the competition, winning first place in the premier division five times and second place seven times and taking out the national competition in 2002 and 2007.
After the Rock Eisteddfod was cancelled, the schools moved to the next stage in their creative arts journey with an annual extravaganza featuring a series of wonderful shows held at the National Institute of Dramatic Art. A true local event, the event provides for students, teachers and parents to be involved in an annual art extravaganza. The efforts of educators from both of these schools have ensured that students continue to receive valuable educational experience and develop leadership and cooperative skills.
I want to thank and pay tribute to all who have been involved in the performances over the last 25 years, in particular principal Heather Emerson, whose passion for public education is contagious, and the incomparable Alysia Hodges, who has been a creative director for the whole 25 years.
The Central Highlands community in my electorate is still coming to terms with the news that BMA will award new service contracts to help operate its Blackwater mine. I have been told that BMA intends to make changes to work conditions at the Blackwater mine. Three hundred jobs will be impacted: 200 permanent positions and 100 already on the labour hire program.
Whilst the discussions are still ongoing, I am concerned about how the decision will affect the family unit. All efforts must be made to keep those families in Blackwater. BMA have made a number of suggestions to further the situation. First, employees could move to other BMA mines. Second, some might seek employment with the new contractor, Downer EDI. Or some might take redundancy packages. Regardless of the final arrangements, it is important to keep the families together, and I urge BMA to think of the local community when deciding the future of the Blackwater operation.
BMA have been a strong and consistent employer in Blackwater. We owe them a lot of thanks. But families in this small community depend on them to do the right thing and keep the family unit together. At the end of the day, there will still be 1,600 employees on the BMA payroll. This is good news, but the 300 workers still must be placed back in jobs. That is how important the decision is.
Mohamed Nasheed, the 'island president', the man who became the first democratically elected President of the Maldives in 2008 and resigned in 2012 at gunpoint, is serving a 13-year sentence on terrorism charges after a trial in March that the UN has described as 'vastly unfair', Amnesty International has described as politically motivated, and my friend and human rights lawyer Amal Clooney has called a 'mockery of justice'.
Nasheed as President introduced liberalising reforms and led the Maldives, one of the world's smallest nations, to become a driving force behind the response to climate change, pledging to make the country carbon neutral by 2020 and famously hosting the first—and, to my knowledge, the only—underwater cabinet meeting to sign a document demanding cuts to carbon emissions. The democratic framework Nasheed tirelessly campaigned for and helped create has all but disappeared under the authoritarian regime of President Abdulla Yameen. Many of Nasheed's former projects and commitments have been renegotiated or erased, and alarmingly, after 60 years, the Maldives is preparing to reintroduce capital punishment. This includes children under 18 who are found guilty being put on death row until they become of age.
Former President Nasheed has received considerable international support, with daily street protests in the Maldives calling for his release. I call on the international community to maintain this support and ask the Australian government to do what it can to ensure that justice occurs for Nasheed and that the democratic process is reinstated in our Indian Ocean neighbour.
I rise to share with the chamber the positive impacts that this government's small business package is having in my electorate of Barker. Since the House rose a fortnight ago, I have had the pleasure of spending time across a vast array of small business operators in my electorate. In my travels I had the pleasure of discussing the package with, amongst others, Jeremy Pippos of Pippos Technology Solutions, based in Berri, in the Riverland. Jeremy is a smart young entrepreneur who immediately identified the opportunity that the coalition's package presented for him to market his business to his clients, like any smart entrepreneur would. As a result of the package, I can report to the House that Jeremy Pippos and his team of four IT professionals— (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
None of us can underestimate the scale of the security and humanitarian disaster now afflicting the people of Syria. At least 200,000 people have been killed. At least one million people have been injured. Perhaps seven million people have been internally displaced. Probably about four million people are stranded beyond Syria's borders. This is a humanitarian catastrophe—an absolute humanitarian catastrophe. Obviously, the people of Syria are currently caught between the mass executions of the Daesh death cult on the one hand and the chemical weapons of the Assad regime on the other. This is a diabolical situation for those people to be in. Of course, in the last few days the world's attention has been riveted by the heart-rending photograph of that young Syrian boy drowned on a beach in Turkey.
The world must act. Australia must act. Australia must play our part in responding to this crisis. As members of this House would know, the immigration minister, Mr Dutton, is in Europe today talking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, talking to the International Organization for Migration and talking to our allies and partners about what more Australia can do to respond. We have already done much. In the last year we have taken some 4½ thousand refugees from Syria and Iraq. It is 30 per cent of our humanitarian and refugee intake. In the last year we have contributed some $100 million to humanitarian assistance in the Middle East. Since 2011, we have contributed some $155 million to humanitarian assistance in Syria. It is a lot, but we can and must do more because when the world is in trouble Australia responds. Australia is a good global citizen. In fact, we are an exemplary global citizen and we will act in character here, as we always do.
I can inform the House that it is the government's firm intention to take a significant number of people from Syria this year. We will give people refuge—that is the firm intention of this government. The women and children in camps, in particular the women and children from persecuted minorities in camps, deserve a compassionate response from Australia, and that is exactly what they will get from this government. And there will be more money because we must assist the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to do its job as well as can be done in these very difficult circumstances.
I will have more to say, on behalf of the government, after we have received the report from Minister Dutton overnight. We can do this responsibly. Because of the changes on our own borders over the last year or so, it is in fact the Australian government which is now in charge of those who come to us under our refugee and humanitarian program. I can also inform the House that, later in this week, it is my intention to meet with community representatives here in Australia, particularly the representatives of the communities now suffering in Syria and in the Middle East. I want to talk to them about what we can do to work with them to ensure that those coming to Australia from the conflict in Syria are well received and, if necessary, well integrated into the Australian community once they arrive.
This government has already provided a very strong security response to the problems in the Middle East, and that response will become stronger in coming days. We have already provided a strong humanitarian response to the problems in the Middle East, and that response will be stronger within coming days. It is obvious to all members of this House, and it would be self-evident to Australians, that we cannot save the world single-handedly, but we will always do what we can to help. That is in our character as a nation—to do what we can to help. We will act to build a better world. We always have; we always will. We will act to lend a helping hand not just here but wherever we humanly can.
All of us in this place have watched the refugee crisis unfolding in the Middle East, and indeed in Europe, with growing concern. The violent evil being perpetrated in the Middle East is driving the largest movement of displaced people since the Second World War. This is a humanitarian crisis gripping our global community and the consequences for desperate people in dreadful circumstances have played out in front of the world's watching eyes. Much has been said and written about the photo—which moved so many of us here in Australia—of that Turkish police officer carrying the body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi up off that Turkish beach. As a father, it shook me to my core. I cannot imagine, and I hope never to know, the toll that such a loss would take upon a person's soul. But that image is, after all, merely a snapshot of the human tragedy afflicting literally tens of thousands of desperate people.
It is only a brief glimpse of a nightmare that so many other parents are living through, right now. Parents, children, husbands and wives will carry the scars of this moment for the rest of their lives. If we can find it in ourselves to confront this reality, to accept the scope and scale of the challenge before us, surely we can agree that words of sympathy are not enough. Surely we can see that our compassion demands action.
As I announced earlier today, I am asking the Prime Minister to convene a bipartisan emergency meeting of state leaders, community and religious representatives to work towards Australia making an offer of 10,000 additional places for refugees displaced by the crisis in Syria. This one-off additional increase in the humanitarian program would come on top of Australia's existing intake. In addition, we seek the government to immediately contribute an extra $100 million towards humanitarian relief efforts in response to the Syrian crisis. This would help provide essential assistance to the most vulnerable people affected by the crisis, including millions of people living in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon on and Jordan.
I believe that at a moment such as this Australians expect their parliament to show leadership, decency and compassion. Europe is dealing with these issues and Australia has a contribution to make too. Labor believes that Australia should play its role in an international response to relieve the suffering and the pressure on Syria's neighbouring countries and the people within them. Australia has been here in not dissimilar circumstances, in the past. Back in 1976 and 1977 Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser stood up, in terms of the tragedy and the exodus from Vietnam. Prime Minister Bob Hawke offered safe haven to Chinese students studying, here, following the Tiananmen Square massacre and Prime Minister John Howard, when dealing with the plight of the Kosovars, made a decision to go above and beyond.
Let us fulfil this tradition. It is now the turn of members of this parliament to step up, to go above and beyond. I note that many members of the government and, indeed, the cabinet have indicated their instinctive support for such a move. We welcome this because bipartisanship is important here too. Let our determination for Australia to be better and do more be one shared by our entire parliament and our whole nation. Let us speak with one voice to the world. Let us live up to the standard that we have always set for ourselves, as the land of the second chance and the home of the fair go for all.
by leave—I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the death of James Bartholomew (Bart) Cummings AM be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the death of Leonard Gordon Darling be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
I can inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today while he returns from a G20 meeting in Turkey. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. As well, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will be absent from question time as he travels to Paris and Geneva for discussions of the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. There is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolding in Syria and surrounding countries. All Australians have been shocked by those horrifying images that have emerged, including the tragic photo of the police officer carrying the body of the poor, deceased little three-year-old boy. Will the Prime Minister join with Labor in a bipartisan fashion and commit to offering 10,000 extra humanitarian places in Australia to refugees displaced by the Syrian crisis?
I do appreciate this question from the Leader of the Opposition. He has asked it in a good spirit and with a good heart. There is a good spirit and a good heart in this parliament and in our country. We always want to do the right thing by people in trouble, and we are not going to let people in trouble down now. We never have and we never will. It is the Australian way, to look after people when they are in trouble.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there is an unprecedented crisis. It is, as he said earlier this afternoon, probably the most serious humanitarian crisis that we have seen. It is the greatest mass movement of people that we have seen since the end of the Second World War and the partition of India. So it is a very serious crisis. I also agree with the Leader of the Opposition that all of us were moved to tears by that poignant image of the drowned child on a beach in Turkey.
I do agree that this parliament should, as far as is possible, act in a unified, collegial fashion when it comes to responding to crises overseas. This parliament, for all of the difficulties and disagreements we have had, has so far been able to speak pretty much with one voice on national security issues. And when it comes to a humanitarian crisis like this, I would like us to continue to speak as far as we can with one voice and to respond as far as we can as one united nation.
So I do appreciate the suggestions that the Leader of the Opposition has made. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton, is in Europe now. His discussions with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration, and with our friends, partners and allies in Europe are now underway. I think it is important that we hear his report. That is what I hope to do overnight before we start to finalise a response. I would say that any response that we do finalise in the next 24 or 48 hours may in fact need to be revised further as this particular crisis unfolds. But it is my intention to listen to the minister and to see what advice he has received from the people on the spot—to weigh the advice that he has received from the experts who are already grappling with this crisis and who have been grappling with this crisis for some time now. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that he will be briefed and that the parliament will be kept updated.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government's economic plan supporting job creation? What will the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement do to further strengthen the economy and to create more jobs in my electorate of Forrest and elsewhere?
I do thank the member for Forrest for her question, and I do appreciate her interest in a strong and prosperous economy and in finalising the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement as quickly as possible.
As you would remember, Mr Speaker, two years ago something quite significant happened: we had a change of government. Two years ago we said that we had a plan for a strong and prosperous economy and for a safe and secure Australia. Two years ago this day we said that Australia was under new management and was once more open for business. And every day since then this government has been backing up working Australians. Every day since then this government has been focused on more jobs, on more economic growth and on greater community safety.
We had a plan. The plan is working, and we are sticking to the plan. Three hundred and thirty-five thousand more jobs are in our economy today than there were on 7 September 2013. Jobs growth is four times as strong now as it was in the final year of the Labor government. Not only that: car sales are at record levels, housing approvals are at the-record levels, company registrations are at record levels and bankruptcies are at record lows.
None of this happens in a vacuum. All of this happens because of good government policy. The job-destroying carbon tax is gone, and every household is better off. The job-destroying mining tax is gone, and Australia is once more a good place to invest. Last year we brought down a budget for saving, and we have secured $50 billion worth of savings over the forward investment. And because of last year's budget for saving, this year we brought down a budget for confidence—the best budget ever for small business, with the biggest small business tax cuts in our history. That is what we are doing every day. We are sticking to our plan for lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade.
On the subject of free trade: one vital building block in our economic future is the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is the most important free trade agreement of all. Once concluded, more than 95 per cent of our exports to China will enter duty-free. No other economy has received such a good deal from China. Everyone is in favour of this—everyone except the Leader of the Opposition and the CFMEU. I ask— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Millions of Syrians are facing death, injury, hunger, homelessness and a breakdown of health, education, electricity, water and other services. Will the Prime Minister commit to an additional $100 million to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to those affected by the Syrian crisis?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs.
He can't even answer!
Please, this is a very serious issue.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order!
I thank the shadow minister for her question. I point out that Australia has, under both the previous Labor government and the current government, taken the lead at the UN Security Council when it comes to humanitarian aid into Syria. In fact, building on the work of former foreign minister Bob Carr, in February 2014, when we were still on the Security Council, Australia co-authored a resolution—2139, passed in February 2014—that called for the cessation of deliberate attacks on civilians in Syria, called for an end to the sieges that trapped so many civilians, called for the end of the use of starvation as a weapon of war and called for the facilitation of access for humanitarian assistance across conflict lines and border areas. Australia was pleased to play a lead role in that regard. At that time we committed a further $10 million in humanitarian aid and $2 million to support the efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. That brought to a total of $112 million—almost $113 million—our aid at that time. Then, in July 2014, we co-authored resolution 2165, which again was a unanimous resolution, about getting cross-border access into Syria for humanitarian aid. We increased our aid to $131 million at that point.
$100 million of that was from us.
The member for Sydney!
In December 2014, with resolution 2191, Australia again took a lead role in promoting the need for greater humanitarian access into Syria. We had increased our funding, by that stage, to $136 million. During 2015 we have increased it to $156 million.
I have been speaking to Minister Dutton—in fact I have been in contact with him en route to Geneva—and I have asked him to address the concerns that we have about ensuring that humanitarian assistance is reaching the necessary civilians and organisations. The fact is: Australia not only pledges but pays. In a recent Kuwaiti conference, a number of countries pledged, but they have not paid. I do call on those countries to stump up to the pledges that they made.
We are considering a further contribution to the humanitarian assistance. Already, our $156 million is one of the lead contributions. Of that, $40 million has gone to the UNHCR for refugee work, $26 million has gone to the World Food Program, $23 million has gone to the United Nations Children's Fund, $13 million has gone to Australian NGOs, including CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children and World Vision, and $7 million has gone to the WHO. Indeed, when I visited Jordan and Lebanon last year, I committed an extra $20 million for schooling and other educational support. We are still considering what more needs to be done. I will be in touch with the immigration minister to confirm the further amounts that we will be contributing to the humanitarian crisis.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Truss. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the benefits to northern Australia of the landmark China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and what threats there are to these benefits?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for the question. One of the highest priorities for this government is the creation of jobs. In fact, we have had some success. Since September 2013, this government has created 335,000 more jobs in the economy.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
The member for Newcastle, again!
That is four times the rate that we inherited from the previous government—four times the rate. But we need to do better and the China free trade agreement is good news for us all. The opportunities for further job creation, in both city and country, are enormous. The opportunities for northern Australia are particularly significant. The Our north, our future white paper on northern Australia helps equip the north to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that the China free trade agreement will open up.
Northern Australia has an enormous amount to offer to Chinese investors. The talents and skills of northern Australia can add significantly to our trade relationship with China. The majority of our exports to China, in fact, come from northern Australia, so there is already a strong linkage—a strong connection—and there are huge opportunities for us to expand on that. For instance, in the resources sector across Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia has outlined some of the benefits to Australian industry as a result of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Reducing tariffs on minerals, including the elimination of all coal tariffs, is likely to save the Australian industry around $600 million. That is $600 million just from the elimination of those tariffs alone. That, clearly, is going to have an enormous boost for northern Australia.
But there is plenty more. Beef tariffs of up to 25 per cent will be gone. Wine tariffs of 30 per cent, horticulture tariffs of 30 per cent, seafood tariffs of 15 per cent, dairy tariffs of 20 per cent—all will be eliminated under this arrangement. Of course, one of the most spectacular of northern Australian industries is the pearling industry. Paspaley Pearls can look forward to a 21 per cent reduction in their tariffs over the first four years of this agreement. So there are very substantial benefits.
The Chairman of the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council welcomed the agreement and congratulated the government and Andrew Robb on their efforts to bring it to a conclusion. And who is the chairman of the live exporters council? Simon Crean, the former transport minister. He knows this will be good for Australia. He knows this will be good for northern Australia. We know this will be good for northern Australia and it is high time members opposite got on board.
My question is to the Prime Minister. A few minutes ago in question time the Prime Minister said about his last two years: 'We had a plan.' Prime Minister, how is your plan working for 800,000 Australians who are not working?
I want to pick the Leader of the Opposition up on one part of his question—it is the first two years, not the last two years, that we are talking about. This is a government which every day since 7 September 2013 has had a plan to be open for business. At the heart of our plan is lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade. That is our plan—lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade—and we have delivered. The carbon tax—gone. The mining tax—gone. Bill Shorten's piggy bank tax—gone. Labor's bank deposit tax—not going ahead. This is a government which in the marrow of its bones, in our very DNA, is committed to lower taxes, and we have delivered.
The Pacific Highway, the Bruce Highway, WestConnex, the North-South Corridor, the Perth Freight Link—all of these great infrastructure projects for our country are happening thanks to this government. Where it really counts, we are setting up this country not just for years but for decades to come, with free trade agreements. Members opposite talked; this government has delivered. Not only did members opposite fail to land a free trade agreement with Korea and fail to land a free trade agreement with Japan; now they want to sabotage the free trade agreement with China.
Mr Speaker, a point of order. It goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has forgotten about 800,000 unemployed people in his answer.
It is not a point of order.
Every day I am working to ensure that Australians without jobs have good prospects to get them—by concluding the China-Australia free trade agreement, which will be good for jobs for decades to come; by ensuring that the Carmichael mine is not sabotaged by the friends of the Labor Party, because that is $20 billion of investment and 10,000 jobs; and by ensuring that our workplaces are clean and honest by cracking down on the dodgy union officials, the rorts, the rackets and the rip-offs that the Leader of the Opposition is determined to protect and to cover up.
There are 335,000 more jobs in our economy than there were when this government came to office, in part because of the good work of our businesses, in part because of the commitment of our workers but very much in part because of the good policy from this government—policy that we will stick to, policy that ensures that this country really is open for business every single day.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Newcastle I have asked to cease interjecting on three occasions now. You are warned.
I have pleasure in informing the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker, Hon. Elise Archer MP, and the Clerk, Mr Shane Donnelly, of the Tasmanian house of assembly. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you accept that bombing Syria will not make Australians safer, will not make Syrians safer and will instead increase instability in a country facing the brutality of both ISIS and the Assad regime? Won't it lay the ground for terrorism to grow and for more people to flee and seek refuge? Instead of more bombs, isn't a better approach for Australia to have a one-off additional intake of 20,000 refugees from Syria?
As I made clear earlier today, at the start of question time, we very much accept that the people of Syria are caught between the mass executions of the death cult and the chemical weapons of the Assad regime. This is a diabolically difficult situation, and that is why there must be not just a humanitarian response but a security response as well, not just an aid and migration response but a military response as well. This is why we are carefully considering whether to extend our air strikes into Syria.
I have to say to the member who asked the question that this death cult which is responsible on a daily, moment-by-moment basis for mass executions, for crucifixions, for beheadings, for sexual slavery, for barbarity almost unimaginable, for barbarity scarcely seen and certainly not boasted about for centuries, is every day dreaming up new ways to kill people, new and more horrific ways to deal with people, and then it is exposing them on the internet. At the same time, it is sending message after message to its sympathisers elsewhere in the world, including here in Australia, to launch attacks on innocent people.
So, should we choose to extend our air strikes into Syria, we will be doing this in the collective self-defence of Iraq. We would be doing this out of a responsibility to protect innocent people at risk of horrible death from the most violent people imaginable. We would be doing this in defence of our own country because this government, all governments, this parliament and all parliaments have a responsibility to keep our country safe. When people threaten our country, when people inspire others to attack our country, this government will react with decency and with force. We will not hesitate to do what is necessary to keep our country safe. We will not hesitate to join our partners and allies in doing what is necessary to build a safer world. We will do the right thing by this country and we will do the right thing by the wider world.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister explain how this government's China-Australia Free Trade Agreement will deliver jobs and growth to the resources and energy industry, particularly in Western Australia? Are there any threats to the realisation of these benefits?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will hear the point of order, but I remind the member for Rankin that I have already warned members that I will not entertain frivolous points of order.
I understand, Mr Speaker. Page 555 of the Practice makes it very clear that ministers are not to be questioned on opposition policies.
No, I am sorry. I have dealt with this matter already, member for Rankin. You sat and you listened to me deal with this matter within the first couple of days of my speakership where I referred to the practice before 2008. The member for Hotham raised a number of points of order on this. It is a frivolous point of order. The member for Rankin is warned!
Honourable members interjecting—
I addressed this at great length. The question did not mention the opposition.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I rise on the point of order. It is accepted that people will be warned for frivolous points of order. When someone is actually quoting Practice it is hard to argue that it is on the frivolous side of points of order.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.
I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. I particularly welcome that intervention from the member for Rankin because he backs Bob Hawke's view of the free trade agreement. The member for Rankin says that Bob Hawke is right and calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to get out of the way of signing the free trade agreement. Well done Bob Hawke, and you backed Bob Hawke so I thank the member for Rankin for his timely intervention.
The member for O'Connor is well aware of the importance that mining, resources and energy play in providing jobs in the Western Australian economy and across our nation. Every member of this parliament should be supporting the China free trade agreement so that the full benefits of more Australian jobs and more export opportunities for our businesses, small, medium and large, can be realised. China is Australia's largest resources and energy market. Exports were worth more than $85 billion in 2013-14. Under the free trade agreement all tariffs on resources and energy products will be eliminated within four years. In fact, most of them will occur as soon as the free trade agreement enters into force. What we will see is the agreement locking in zero tariffs on major resource exports such as iron ore, gold, crude petroleum oils and LNG. This will give Australian mining, resource and energy companies a huge competitive advantage in the Chinese market. It will lead to more mining, resource and energy projects and more jobs here in Australia.
The biggest threat to more Australian jobs and more opportunities under the free trade agreement is, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition. In trying to derail the China free trade agreement he would prefer to see these jobs go to competitive countries, and these Australian jobs will go to competitive countries if this agreement does not go ahead. The opportunities will be taken up by other countries. Our businesses and our workers will miss out. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has form on free trade agreements. We know from the Labor Party pick for Prime Minister, Mark Latham, that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted when it comes to free trade agreements. He said:
… Public Shorten against the FTA, Private Billy in favour of it.
The Leader of the Opposition is actually double dealing on this free trade agreement, as he did on the US free trade agreement. Mark Latham reminded us in September 2005 in a Lateline interview:
… how do you consult with a union leader like Shorten, who's saying one thing publically and exactly the opposite privately?
… … …
I think it's a … black mark against … Shorten's name.
He went on to observe that Shorten spoke with contempt for the members of his union and tried to walk both sides of the street. The Leader of the Opposition should remember to put the national interest first— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Senate submission by Mr Bill Milby of North Star Cruises in Western Australia, which states that a senior infrastructure department official told him the company should:
… consider taking our ship ‘True North’ off the Australian Shipping Register, re register the ship in a suitable foreign country, lay off our Australian crew and hire a cheaper foreign crew.
How can Australians possibly trust this Prime Minister and this government with jobs?
I am aware of the allegations that have been made, which I understand will also be further explored by the member's colleagues in the Senate later tonight. I have spoken to the secretary of my department, who has assured me that the comments attributed to a senior member of the staff of the department are inaccurate—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.
and do not reflect accurately the words of the conversation entered into by the staff member concerned. It is also important to note that, if the advice was given, it would in fact be inaccurate, because it is not possible under the proposed legislation before the parliament for an Australian cruise ship to have foreign crew and operate on the Australian coast for 12 months of the year. That is simply not possible. That is not accurate.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
So since the reported advice is not even in keeping with the content of the act, that tends to support the suggestion by the secretary of my department that the evidence or the reporting of the alleged conversation is not accurate.
To assist the minister, I seek leave to table the submission from North Star Cruises Australia.
It is a public document already.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister inform the House on the importance of our landmark free-trade agreement with China for job creation in Australia during this critical post mining boom period. What risks are there to this job creation?
I thank the member for her question. She would know as well as anyone in this House the critical importance for new job creation in the years ahead post the mining boom. This China agreement, to this end, will create literally tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead off the back of this agreement alone.
I met today with members of the Financial Services Council, who told me that within 14 or 15 years, by 2030, 10,000 new jobs will be created in that sector alone and literally $4 billion will be added to economic output. Again, today, the Master Builders Association told a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that the FTA would create an additional 500 jobs in the first year and generate an extra $1 billion. The Australian dairy industry says that the agreement will create between 600 and 700 jobs in the first year alone. And Blackmores has recently hired 100 people on the northern beaches in New South Wales—an area where jobs are needed—in anticipation of capitalising on the China free-trade agreement.
I was asked what are the risks associated with these and thousands of other prospective jobs? The risk is that Labor is going to vote down the enabling legislation and watch China walk away from the best deal they have done with any developed country in the world. The risk is that Labor will do the bidding of that well-known ethical organisation, the CFMEU, which spent $12 million peddling lies and scares around this country claiming that we are going to weaken worker protection. Despite the lies of the CFMEU and the comfort those opposite are giving it, nothing has changed regarding worker protections. What we will see in a month's time are two bills associated with enabling legislation, two Customs bills.
There will be no migration bill. Why not? Because nothing has changed. There is no need for a migration bill. Those opposite are embarking on a massive con of the Australian people, aiding and abetting the CFMEU in its political campaign to destabilise this government. Please, it is too expensive for the Australian community. Get out of the road and let this agreement go through.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on Sunrise, the Prime Minister said:
…the plan is working and we are sticking with the plan.
Given that there are 1,200 more unemployed people in Mandurah than there were when the government came to office, why does the Prime Minister not see that the plan is not working?
I can inform the member who asked the question that there are 45,000 more Western Australians employed now than there were on election night in September 2013 because, amongst other things, we have abolished the anti-West Australian taxes like the carbon tax, which the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back and bring back on steroids, and the mining tax, which the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back and bring back on steroids.
This is a government which has created 335,000 more jobs since the election. We want to do more and we will do more. This is an opposition, by contrast, which wants to sabotage the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Those opposite are working to sabotage the Carmichael mine and when they are not protecting dodgy union officials at the royal commission, they are appeasing Green members of parliament in order to get Green preferences. So if you want more jobs in this country, there is only one way to vote and that is to vote for the party that wants lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade. That is the only way to vote.
If you want more jobs in the part of Western Australia that the member who asked the question refers to, you have got to vote for a fellow called Andrew Hastie. That is what you have got to do because, I tell you what, this is someone who knows what it is like to fight for our country. This is someone with the character to stand up for the Australian people and, having served our country in the Army, he is just waiting for his opportunity to serve our country and the people of Canning in this parliament. I pray to God that that will be given to him.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House of the benefits to the international education sector of the government's recently concluded free trade agreement with China? And, what are the risks to the realisation of these benefits?
I thank the member for Brisbane for her question. I am very pleased to tell her and the House that international education has been one of the standout successes of this government in the last two years, on this the anniversary day of the election of the Abbott government. In the last two financial years, international education has gone from about $16 billion of value to the Australian economy to over $18 billion of value to the Australian economy, and year-on-year enrolments of international students have increased 14.6 per cent. So international education is one of those areas that is providing jobs and growth. In fact, it is the fourth largest export industry after iron ore, coal and natural gas, in front of gold.
The China Australia Free Trade Agreement will allow that to expand even further because under the ChAFTA, negotiated by the Minister for Trade, China will open up the market even more to non-university higher education providers. Overnight, 77 providers will be added to the Ministry of Education website as preferred providers within a year of the agreement being settled by Australia and China. So you would think that all Australians and all people in this House would be in favour of expanding the China Australia Free Trade Agreement in order to open up more markets for international education providers, more jobs and more growth. But Labor represents a risk to these jobs and this growth. Labor is the cat's claw of the CFMEU.
For short-term political gain, they are hopping into bed with the CFMEU to oppose the China Australia Free Trade Agreement and, with that opposition, are denying jobs and growth to the higher education market in Australia. They should be ashamed of themselves, because it is only due to the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition that this is being allowed to occur. Great Labor leaders stand up to unions like the CFMEU, but not this Labor leader. This Labor leader has decided instead to handover policy on trade, investment, jobs and growth to the CFMEU—one of the most discredited unions in Australia's history, ranking alongside the BLF from which many of its members came.
Labor should listen to real Labor luminaries: Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Simon Crean, even Jay Weatherill, Daniel Andrews from Victoria and Luke Foley from New South Wales—real Labor leaders, who know what is good for jobs and growth. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Prime Minister said:
The plan is working and we are sticking with the plan.
Prime Minister, given that in the Illawarra there are 10,000 people who are already looking for work and that BlueScope's Port Kembla plant looks like laying off a further 500 jobs, does this not show that your plan is not working?
I am very pleased that the member for Throsby has asked me about jobs in the Illawarra because the one political movement that was absolutely hostile to jobs in the Illawarra, particularly at BlueScope Steel, was the Labor Party. I well remember when Graham Kraehe, the chairman of BlueScope—a very gutsy, decent, business leader—went to the National Press Club to talk about the absolutely lethal threat that the carbon tax posed to BlueScope. What we have done for BlueScope is that we have saved BlueScope from the carbon tax.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
What BlueScope have said that if the carbon tax comes back in any way, shape or form, steelmaking in this country has no future whatsoever. We all know what Graham Kraehe said about providing compensation for a carbon tax. He said that it would be like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. Oh, yes—the member who asked the question can shake his head. But we have not forgotten, the Australian people have not forgotten and the people of the Illawarra have not forgotten—
You've got no plan. You're hostile to their jobs.
The member for Thorsby will cease interjecting.
the threat that the carbon tax poses to jobs in the Illawarra, the carbon tax which this Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back. What the people of the Illawarra will get from this government is lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade. That is what they will get. What that means is more jobs for the people of Australia. The plan is already working—
What plan? You don't have a plan.
The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting.
with 335,000 more jobs since the election. That is why we are continuing with a plan because our plan for lower taxes, more infrastructure and freer trade is exactly what the people of Australia need if we are to have the prosperous jobs of the future.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
I remind the member for Moreton.
The member who asked the question is sitting down there bellowing, Mr Speaker. He should have the guts to go to BlueScope Steel and say to the workers there, 'Re-elect us, and the carbon tax comes back.' Go on, say it.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Throsby will cease interjecting.
He makes a big man of himself in this parliament. He wants to make a big man of himself here in this parliament. Have the guts to go to BlueScope Steel and say: 'You put Labor back and the carbon tax comes back. If the carbon tax comes back, your plant and your jobs are gone.'
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is delaying question time.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer update the House on the importance of the China Australia Free Trade Agreement to jobs creation in Australia, particularly in the financial services sector? And, are there any risks to this approach?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question and acknowledge her deep commitment to jobs growth and free trade in this country. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a landmark agreement which is in Australia's long-term economic interests. It is good for farmers, it is good for miners and it is good for people working in services. Already, in the financial services sector, nearly 10 per cent of the Australian economy is employing nearly 400,000 people. Under ChAFTA, the rules around insurance, banking, wealth management and funds management will all be liberalised. No wonder there has been such strong support from the industry; the Bankers' Association, the Insurance Council, Equity Trustees, ANZ, Westpac are all coming out strongly in favour. The Financial Services Council said:
This agreement is an outstanding achievement for Australia. It will create jobs and growth by allowing our industries to access the world’s largest market.
I am asked: 'Are there any risks to this approach?' The greatest risk comes from those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition; his reckless obstruction of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is like seeing him sitting on his dinghy against an armada of support, which includes former Labor prime ministers, Labor state premiers and of course a former president of the ACTU.
But there is one question we have to ask in this House: when did the Leader of the Opposition start to oppose the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement? Was it: (a) in 2015, when the agreement was signed? Was it: (b) in 2014, when the agreement was concluded after nearly 10 years of negotiation? Or was it: (c) before negotiations even began, when he was leader of the union movement?
You can probably guess that the answer is (c). This is what happened on 7 February 2005, nearly three months before negotiations began. The Leader of the Opposition was the head of the AWU and he said to a national conference:
Another major challenge … before us is a possible Free Trade Agreement with China. … we remain to be convinced that any such deal with China could be in our national interest.
The agreement had not even begun negotiations. It had not even been released and he was already against it.
The Leader of the Opposition was doing the bidding of the unions then; he is doing the bidding of the unions now. He was railing against an agreement that had not even started negotiations. Let it be known. As Leader of the Opposition his job is to act in the national interest, and the national interest means getting out of the way and letting the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement become law.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I rise to speak on the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific Day. This is an incredibly important event that we mark in this House today. The conflict in the Pacific during World War II was the turning point for modern Australia. It was a turning point for an Australia that came of age. We were discussing previously the centenary of Gallipoli, another important even in Australian history often remarked on as when Australia came of age as a nation. I respect those that put that as the key moment, but I do think that World War II and the Australian response in the Pacific was a crucial turning point. It was a period when Australian unambiguously turned away from seeing itself as a Pacific outpost of the United Kingdom into a country that was standing up on its own two legs.
The conflict in the Pacific touched every part of our country. There is no doubt about that. Every part of the country would have a story about the impact of the war and how it touched their region. In my region of Lake Macquarie-Newcastle we were home to the Rathmines flying boat base on the shores of Lake Macquarie. At its peak it had 3,000 RAAF personnel present. It was the largest flying boat base in the Pacific. It played a crucial role in the Pacific conflict. Catalina flying boats based out of Rathmines identified the convoys travelling down the coast of PNG towards Port Moresby trying to circumvent the Kokoda track. This identification and trailing of those convoys led to the battle of the Coral Sea.
The Battle of the Coral Sea was a key turning point in the Pacific. It halted the seaward advancement of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and a few weeks later we saw the turning point of the Battle of Midway where the USS Yorktown, which the Japanese thought had been sunk at the Coral Sea, came into conflict and played a crucial role in sinking six Japanese aircraft carriers. This really was a turning point of the war in the Pacific against the Japanese. That could not have occurred without the Coral Sea battle; it could not have occurred without halting the Japanese advancement on Port Moresby. The Rathmines flying boat base played a crucial role in that conflict.
The other part of the flying boat role out of Rathmines in terms of the Pacific conflict that was most crucial was the mining of Manila harbour, which cut off a crucial harbour base for the Japanese—not just their naval fleet but their merchant base as well. The RAAF operated 168 Catalina flying boats from 1941 to 1950. Of these, 32 were shot down in combat and 332 lives were lost. I pay tribute to, and honour the memory of, those 332 personnel. The base was sited at Rathmines because Lake Macquarie is the biggest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere—it is actually four times the size of Sydney Harbour. The base served many purposes: it trained air crews in the use of flying boats and sea rescue crews; it serviced and maintained the flying boats; it supplied Seagull and Walrus aircraft for the Royal Australian Navy; and the Catalinas that were based there patrolled the New South Wales coast. I honour that heritage.
There is a very strong community in the Lake Macquarie region that is dedicated to honouring the Rathmines flying boat base and is doing all they can to get due acknowledgement of that base. It is a well-kept secret in our region. People in our region have RAAF Williamtown, which played a crucial role in World War II, but Rathmines played an equally important role, and we need to honour that contribution.
I would also like to acknowledge the role of servicewomen at the Rathmines base. The Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force was created in 1949, and Rathmines was a sought-after posting. Women were deployed in 73 trades at the base and worked in many fields that were traditionally the domain of men, such as armaments works, flight mechanics, meteorology, and signals and radar. I pay tribute to the 57 members of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force who died in service to their country.
In talking to this motion I also want to acknowledge and place on the record the courageous and inspiring leadership of our wartime leader, Prime Minister John Curtin. At the Centenary of Federation in 2001 Prime Minister Howard acknowledged two prime ministers of particular significance in the 20th century. One was Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister and Mr Howard's political mentor, Sir Robert Menzies—and that is understandable—and the other was John Curtin, whom Prime Minister Howard honoured for his leadership of our country at a time of grave peril. John Curtin became Prime Minister in October 1941, two years into the war and only a few months after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. His leadership saw the successful defence of Australia against Japanese imperial forces and the establishment of our security alliance with the United States, which, 70 years on, remains the bedrock of our national security.
There is little public recognition of Curtin's pre-war involvement in defence policy. In the years leading up to 1939 Curtin played a constructive role in national security as Leader of the Opposition. He supported the bipartisan approach to defence policy by the Lyons government's defence minister, Archdale Parkhill, and in the years leading up to the war he advocated for coastal defence and the production of defence materiel. In any recognition of John Curtin's leadership it should be noted that he bravely stood up to Sir Winston Churchill and ensured that Australian forces, rightly, defended Australia. It is well known that after the fall of Singapore, and without seeking Australian approval, Churchill directed the 7th Division of the Second Australian Imperial Force to Burma. They were in transit from the Middle East, coming back to Australia, when Winston Churchill attempted to divert them to defend Burma. John Curtin was rightly infuriated by this move and insisted that these ships return to Australia. In retrospect, this was not only the right move for Australia but also the right move for the war effort, because they were not travelling with their defence materiel—their armaments, their weapons. Had they been successfully diverted to Burma—at Rangoon in particular—I suspect they would have been caught up in the Japanese advance, been immediately interned in the Japanese prisoner of war camps and suffered the horrendous fate of other prisoners of war.
Instead, they successfully came back to Australia and strengthened our militia forces then fighting against the Japanese in PNG and played a crucial role in turning the Japanese back in Kokoda—the first land-based defeat of the Japanese army in World War II. I honour the role John Curtin played in World War II. In particular, I honour his role in standing up to Winston Churchill and saying that these troops were needed in Australia, that they were needed to defeat the imperial Japanese forces then advancing through PNG.
Mr Curtin's role in founding the US alliance is also very significant in this debate around victory in the Pacific. In Curtin's famous new year's message of 1941—in fact, 1942—he wrote that:
Without any inhibitions of any kind I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
This statement was obviously controversial at the time, but history also records that his policy was correct in that the sole focus of the United Kingdom was on defeating Germany in Europe and that Australia would need to ally with America in the Pacific to defeat Japan.
I do not need to inform the House of the close involvement of America and Australia in defeating Japan with our allies, including the United Kingdom, but do note that the relationship that arose from this involvement has formed the basis of our 70-year security relationship with the United States. Both sides of politics recognise the significance of our alliance with America, and John Curtin is responsible for the creation of this important relationship. As a country we were fortunate indeed to have been led during the Second World War by this brave and wise leader—a brave and wise leader much like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was not destined to survive World War II, who worried himself sick during World War II and was acutely aware of the demands he was placing upon Australian service men and women and on our civilian population.
In conclusion, I honour the contribution of all Australians at that time to victory in the Pacific. I honour the hundreds of thousands of Australians who fought. I honour the hundreds of thousands who participated in wartime industries. I honour the memory and sacrifice of the thousands of Australians who laid down their lives or were wounded in this conflict. Theirs was a noble cause. We often debate conflict in this place and whether there is such a thing as a just war. World War II was such a thing. It was a just war, and I honour the memory of all those Australians, in particular those in my region, who were associated with that conflict.
I also rise to speak on the 70th anniversary of VP Day, and I take great pride in doing that. At 12 noon Tokyo time on 15 August 1945, Japan signed an unconditional surrender to bring the war in the Pacific, and indeed the Second World War, to an end, an important moment in Australia's history. Through those six years, nearly one million Australians served. Almost 40,000 lost their lives. Many, many more thousands suffered physical and mental wounds or suffered the ultimate indignity of spending time during that conflict as prisoners of war.
Tasmania had a very proud record of service during the Second World War. My uncle Desmond Cordell served in the Air Force in the Second World War. The 2/40th Infantry Battalion was recruited almost entirely from Tasmania. They served in Dutch Timor, forming the bulk of what was known as Sparrow Force, which defended the airfield at Penfui, the operational base for the RAAF's Hudson bombers of No. 2 Squadron, of which my uncle was a member. Many of those were taken as prisoners of war in 1942.
Sailor Teddy Sheean was also born in Tasmania. He served aboard HMAS Armidale off the coast of Timor in December of 1942, when the ship came under heavy attack by Japanese aircraft. The ship was hit by two torpedos and began to sink. Anyone that has not seen the painting of Teddy Sheean wounded, refusing to abandon ship and strapped to his gun, shooting at the Japanese aircraft even as the ship was sinking below the surface, should do so. To imagine an 18-year-old in that circumstance is something that really is quite extraordinary.
I had the privilege on 15 August this year to attend a memorial service at St Helens in my electorate. It was a wonderful service. It combined the unveiling of 23 plaques, on which are the names of the 1,382 Tasmanian men and women known to have died from their World War II service, serving with various Australian, British and New Zealand armed forces and merchant navies. My absolute congratulations go to Mr Graham Cameron for the work that he undertook to collate this information and to include also all of those men that served in World War I; we will have an opportunity to unveil those plaques later this year. These plaques were made possible by a contribution of $24,000 from the Australian government, and having those plaques unveiled made that remembrance service all the more special.
Of particular note, I should add that there were a number of World War II veterans in attendance that day. These men and women are well into their 90s now, and some are increasingly frail, but truly it made a very special day even more special. I will just acknowledge those veterans that were in attendance at St Helens. Mr Alf Barnett served in New Britain. Mr Roy Moody served in Bougainville. Mr Len Smith served in PNG and Bougainville. Mr Max Franks served in northern Australia. Ray Coltman served on HMAS Warramunga in the Pacific and, significantly, was in Tokyo Bay on the ship during the surrender of Japan. Barney Fletcher served in PNG, Mr Bill Deacon in northern Australia and Mr Allan Brown also in northern Australia. Peggy Cameron served with the nurses in Malaya and in the RAANC post World War II.
It was a wonderful service, and to make it even more special we had Mr Brian Freeman from Walking Wounded, which is an extraordinary story. Brian is an ex-serviceman; he served in Afghanistan. He is the founder and executive director of Walking Wounded. It is his mission to raise awareness of the plight of veterans and the challenges and difficulties that many veterans face, particularly our current veterans, on returning from active service overseas and assimilating back into normal civilian life. Brian Freeman, on behalf of Walking Wounded, has a roll of honour from Afghanistan that was presented to Walking Wounded by the Governor-General of Australia, His Excellency General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove, on Remembrance Day 2014. After travelling from Mount Everest and throughout Australia—including kayaking across Bass Strait—and along the Kokoda Track and up Mount Kilimanjaro, it will be returned to the Governor-General at the Australian War Memorial on the eve of Remembrance Day 2015. It was a wonderful thing to have Brian and a number of supporters that follow him on his walk. They really, as he said, have not had to put their hands in their pockets at all. They have had the generosity of the communities that they have passed through on their travels around Australia. It made this very significant occasion in St Helens all the more special.
Can I just briefly acknowledge the other people who organised the service. I mentioned Mr Graham Cameron. From the RSL, there was Mr Greg 'Legsy' Eyles, and Mr Harry Jager also participated in the service. As I mentioned, Mr Len Smith was the MC. Contributions on the day we were made by Mayor Mick Tucker and yours truly. It was a very special event, with schoolchildren from the high school and representation from TS Argonaut, which is the naval cadet training ship that is located in St Helens and conducts its activities on Georges Bay. They are a very active naval cadet unit and they have a wonderful leadership. They are an outstanding group of young people. Many over the years have gone on to serve in the Australian Navy, having started their interest in these areas with TS Argonaut.
As I mentioned before, it gives me great pleasure to recognise all of those Australians who served—and many of whom gave their lives—during the Second World War. It is appropriate at this time that we recognise the sacrifice that they made for us and the generations to come.
It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on and about the 70th Anniversary of the end of the war in the Pacific. I do not recall it, but I know that my father's and mother's families do. My father was overseas at the time, in New Guinea. On 15 August 1945, you can imagine the elation when radios in homes across Australia crackled with the news, as Prime Minister Ben Chifley announced the end of the war against Japan:
Fellow citizens, the war is over.
The Japanese Government has accepted the terms of surrender imposed by the Allied Nations and hostilities will now cease. …
At this moment let us offer thanks to God.
Let us remember those whose lives were given that we may enjoy this glorious moment and may look forward to a peace which they have won for us.
Indeed, it was a peace which they won for us. In the days that followed, a war-weary nation breathed a sigh of relief and began to celebrate in the cities and towns and hamlets across this great country of ours.
We well recall the history. The war in the Pacific began with the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. With the fall of Singapore in February 1942, it became very clear to all Australians, I am certain, what the threat really was and how the war might soon come to our shores. And then, four days after the fall of Singapore, on 19 March 1942, bombs fell for the first time on Australian soil, when Darwin was attacked in the first of 64 raids. The last raid was on 12 November 1943. During those 21 months the Japanese bombed other towns, including Broome four times and Townsville three times. Others included Katherine, Batchelor and Milingimbi in the Northern Territory; Mossman in North Queensland; and Wyndham, Port Hedland, Onslow, Exmouth and Derby in Western Australia.
The North felt the brunt of this attack, of these Japanese bombing raids. The reasons were fairly apparent. The Japanese, whether or not they were seeking to invade our country, were clearly trying to prevent Australian and Allied forces operating out of bases in the North that could launch counteroffensives into the Netherlands East Indies—now Indonesia—with its rich supplies of oil. The raids were, in that sense, pre-emptive and could not be seen as part of any invasion. In May 1942 United States and Australian aircraft clashed with Japanese planes over the Coral Sea and, later in June, the Battle of Midway put a check on Japan.
The Northern Territory felt the brunt of the war effort acutely. The Stuart Highway—dirt, as it was—became the main avenue for troop reinforcements into the North and out of Australia. Camps were set up in Alice Springs, Katherine and Adelaide River. Darwin was an occupied town, in terms of the military presence. Citizens were evacuated south, and Australians were put under greater movement controls than at any time since the convict era. There have never been, since then, such controls. Some of them included such things as restricting sporting events. Exmouth's Christmas and New Year holidays were limited to three days only. Blackouts and brownouts were obligatory for cities and coastal areas, including Darwin and Katherine. Daylight saving was mandatory. There were increased call-ups of the militia. There was the issue of personal identity cards. There was the increased enlistment of women in auxiliary and nursing forces. There was a fixing of profit margins for industry.
There were restrictions on the cost allowed for building and renovation. There was the setting of some women's pay rates at near male levels because of the work they were then doing for the war. There were controls put on the cost of dresses and other price-pegging. There was a rationing of clothing, footwear, tea, butter and sugar. There was the banning of the Communist Party and the Australia First Movement for their opposition to the war. We also saw the formation of the wonderful Women's Land Army. That generation that fought and worked for Australia through the Pacific War is passing. Those children who lived through the rationing, shortages, price controls and absent fathers and can remember the experience are well passed retirement age. My generation—and, I am, certain subsequent generations—are eternally grateful to them. We have all become the beneficiaries of the reforms that commenced as Australia was put on alert for total war.
The end of the war brought great hope and enthusiasm for progress—a promise to rebuild Australia that had been marred by the Depression, war and drought; a promise to get on with the work left undone since Federation. All through the Pacific War the Labor governments of John Curtin and Ben Chifley concentrated on the kind of Australia it wanted once the fighting was over. They were ably assisted by some really outstanding public servants, one of whom I worked with closely for a number of years in the late seventies and early eighties. That of course was Dr H. C. 'Nugget' Coombs, who was crucial and central to rationing during the war and the postwar reconstruction and to the economic policies that were adopted by both the Curtin and Chifley governments.
It became clear during that period that Australia could no longer rely on selling primary products to pay for its industrial imports, and the boom and bust cycle of economic activity had to be addressed. The commitment to full employment and low inflation became a key government responsibility. The war transformed the Australian economy. Construction of aircraft, mass production of small arms and the fashioning of precision instruments and machine tools required more skilled trades, and education was subsequently changed to meet those requirements. We built a very extensive and important manufacturing base.
My generation benefited from a high school and university education—something beyond the means of my parents, whose school years were lived through the grim years of the 1930's Depression. After the war we saw great initiatives such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme and many other projects. The Pacific War was also a watershed for women. Large numbers of women entered the workforce, whereas previously they were unemployed. But at war's end many felt frustration as the skills and confidence they acquired in the workforce were looked down upon as the expectation was that women would depart from those jobs and return to be homemakers. Not all women wanted to return to their old situation.
The war also brought about changes in terms of health reform. Many great changes were initiated as a result of what happened during that war period. No doubt others in this debate will refer to those great battles of Kokoda and Milne Bay, the war in the Dutch East Indies and in Timor, the operation of 'Z' force, those courageous men many of whose lives were lost as a result of the fall of Singapore, and the captured Australian soldiers who died at the hands of the Japanese in Changi and other places as prisoners of war. One cannot underestimate the impact that the war had on Australia.
When we talk about current conflicts, we know that, when our returned men and women come back from those conflicts, they will be well looked after. Sadly, this was not the case after the Second World War. Whilst we pay a lot of regard to issues such as post-traumatic stress and other matters that have evolved from our knowledge regarding the impact of war on the mental health of individuals, there was not that recognition after the Second World War—at least not as widely as it should have been. Many of my own family, including my father and my uncles, were war veterans. After the war, we saw the rise of returned organisations and unit organisations, and they offered support to one another. I vividly recall hearing stories about people being 'in the horrors'. 'In the horror's was a description of people who were mentally affected by the war, and treatment was not as readily available or as extensive as it is today.
During this conflict, those people who fought in the war in the Pacific sacrificed greatly for all of us, and the tens of thousands who marched in uniform on our behalf need to be remembered. We must acknowledge that whether or not you believe that there was to be an imminent invasion of Australia that without their work, their sacrifice, their courage and their effort, then we may well have lost the war in the Pacific. So it is important that we remember this 70th anniversary. There are things which most Australians, I do not think, are fully aware of.
In 1987 when I first got elected to this parliament I spoke in this place—although not in this chamber; in the chamber in Old Parliament House—about our obligations as a result of the Second World War to the people of what is now known as Timor Leste and East Timor. My father was a member of the 2/2nd Commandos. Although he did not serve with the 2/2nd in East Timor, the 2/2nd went to East Timor initially in December of 1941. They left roughly 12 months later. What was important about their contribution was that they actually quarantined a whole Japanese force by running a guerilla campaign in East Timor with very few casualties. They were reinforced in the second half of 1942 by the 2/4th.
Whilst we did not suffer many casualties in East Timor, as a direct result of the protection and camaraderie by the East Timorese, they lost tens of thousands of people, because they looked after, protected, hid and provided succour and support for Australian servicemen. So now we have Timor Leste as a partner, but we should all remember that we owe that country a great debt of honour which I do not think can ever properly be repaid. We can give recognition. We can support their government. We can provide aid but we can never replace the lives of those tens of thousands of people that were lost as a direct result of the Japanese occupation of East Timor.
So when we reflect upon this 70th anniversary, we understand our own pain and the pain of our families and their suffering. But let us also remember the suffering of others, the fall of Singapore—what a military disaster. But we were not the only ones who suffered. We had our troops and civilians in prison but, when the Japanese cascaded down the Malay Peninsula, it was not just Australian and British lives that were lost; there were the lives of the Malays and the Singaporeans. So it is, I think, important that we contemplate the whole of this, not just part. Certainly, its impact on Australia is very hard to define.
I should make the observation, because of where I live, that northern Australians had a particular part to play in this war and Aboriginal Australians and the people of the Torres Strait did most particularly. Aboriginal people became supporters and worked in uniform across northern Australia. The North Australia Observer Unit, the Nackeroos—later became in their modern iteration NORFORCE or Far North Queensland 51 Regiment and the Pilbara Regiment—had their battles. They worked for us in uniform as members of the Australian Defence community during the Second World War.
Significantly, post 1945, our corner of the Asia-Pacific region was no longer controlled by Britain, France and the Netherlands. Australia had to have a new outlook to deal with our soon-to-be independent neighbours, and of course it was also the dawn of the atomic age. The peace that Ben Chifley said we could look forward to has to a great extent been achieved but it has not been without its sacrifice since.
We have seen wars in Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, the first and second Gulf wars and now the war in Afghanistan. We need to recognise again and remain vigilant in supporting our men and women in uniform for the job they do for us. We must ensure that, unlike for those vets of the Second World War initially who came home, we look after these men, women and their families on their return. Thank you.
It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this statement of indulgence on the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific Day, which marked the end of World War II. That war ended with the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima it was estimated that between 90,000 and 150,000 people perished. At Nagasaki, between 40,000 and 80,000 perished—radiation sickness; absolute devastation.
If we look back from the comfort of the 21st century, it is often easy to criticise the decision to drop atomic bombs on those two cities. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that that decision was actually historically and morally correct. I believe that, if we weigh up all the factors that President Truman had to make, as horrible as it actually was, not to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have resulted in more death, more pain and more suffering. Firstly, as the Second World War was coming to a conclusion, it was important not only that Japan surrendered but that it surrendered unconditionally. Their militaristic society which they had developed had to be dismantled completely to avoid future conflict. We had learnt that from the mistakes of the aftermath of World War I in Europe.
Secondly, after the bloody battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it was clear that a Normandy-type amphibious landing to defeat Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides—not only Allied servicemen and, most likely, many Australian servicemen but also the lives of the Japanese defenders. The Japanese actually predicted 20 million deaths of their own people defending the home islands. The US estimates there would be four million Allied casualties with one million dead. How could any leader of the world explain to the families of those millions of Allied servicemen that he had the technology and the weapons to end the war and save their lives but did not use them. Likewise, avoiding a Normandy-type amphibious landing to finally defeat Japan saved countless Japanese lives as well. The alternative—a continuation of traditional bombing—would have likely seen just as many if not more deaths. We know, for example, that earlier in 1945 the firebombing of Japan killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the combined deaths of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thirdly, prolonging the war would have seen the Soviets enter in full flight against Japan, potentially occupying the northern islands of Japan, setting up Japan for the rest of the 20th century divided like Korea—only sowing the seeds for further conflict like we continue to see with the Korean nation divided between north and south.
Fourthly, there were the prisoners of war. At the time of the bombings there were 123,000 Allied prisoners of war held by the Japanese. The documents showed that, had Allied forces landed on the mainland, the Japanese holding those prisoners of war had been given orders to execute every single one of those 123,000—tens of thousands of them Australian soldiers. They were saved by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There are lessons we have to learn and take away. Firstly, sometimes when you are facing extreme evil you need to use extreme violence. We perhaps need to be reminded of that lesson today in the conflicts in the Middle East against groups like Daesh. We cannot expect our military forces to fight them with one hand tied behind their back. If we are serious about the fight—and we have seen the extent of these people's evil with beheadings of innocent civilians and the rape and torture of innocent women—we need to learn from our history to use every military resource in our power to destroy Daesh.
Secondly, we need to realise how fortunate our generation is. My generation, my children's generation and, hopefully, my grandchildren's generation do and will in the future enjoy the prosperity and the peace that was won by those who had to fight the Pacific War, those who had to make those sacrifices.
It is important that we learn our lessons from history. It is important that we remember the past, remember the mistakes and make sure that we do not repeat them. Lest we forget.
On Saturday, 15 August at the Seven Hills-Toongabbie RSL we gathered, standing room only, 70 years after the machines of war fell silent across the Pacific. We gathered to reaffirm that the passage of time has not diminished our pride or reverence for the generation of Australians who came together in our darkest hour and resolutely met the challenge of war. We recalled their triumph, reflected on their sacrifice and rededicated ourselves to the ideals enshrined in this chamber for which they fought and for which so many died.
When the outbreak of war came, the recruiting station in Blacktown saw local citizens sign up from all walks of life and myriad ethnicities, answering the call to defend our way of life. Blacktown residents who originated from far-flung countries such as Sweden, Lithuania, India, China and Greece as well as modern-day Myanmar and Croatia enlisted to defend their adopted homeland. These Australians by choice proudly fought side by side with Australians by birth, and together they faced the forces of oppression against the backdrop of the Pacific Theatre. The Fall of Singapore tested the character of our military and the will of our nation, but, rather than break our national spirit, it galvanised the unyielding resolve that defines us. With unity and courage the men and women of Australia countered the rising tide of Tyranny which threatened our shores. On the front lines, through extraordinary valour, the key battles of the Coral Sea and Milne Bay were won and the jungles of Kokoda and Bougainville were conquered.
As a young community, service men and women from Greenway may have been small in number, but their valour and contribution to the war effort was nevertheless significant. Just as one example, I think of Flying Officer Gordon Jack, of Pendle Hill, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. His bravery was proudly recounted in the local papers as follows:
Throughout his tour of operations Flying Officer Jack has accomplished his duties with determination and exceptional skill … On one occasion 70 bursts of accurate fire were directed at his aircraft, but, after, taking evasive action, he returned to the target and completed his mission. Another time, Flying Officer Jack's aircraft was hit by fire from the defences and severely damaged; but, nevertheless, despite difficulty in control of the aircraft, and adverse weather, he persisted in his endeavours and successfully completed his mission.
Back home, Australian women, whom Prime Minister Curtin called 'the second line of service to Australia', responded with equal gallantry and strength. Due to the shortage of male recruits by mid-1941, the Australian government established the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Women's Army Service and the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service. By 1944 almost 50,000 women belonged to these services, while thousands of others joined the Australian Women's Land Army to maintain rural farming operations. In our local community, newspapers reported one such group's formation as follows:
Enthusiastically responding to a call to form a branch of the Women's Auxiliary, Air League, at Blacktown, 30 girls enrolled at a meeting at the Public School … an aero engine course, theory and practice, navigation, first aid, morse code and physical drill would be given [to] members.
By 1943 newspapers noted that the Blacktown Auxiliary had grown to '50 financial members, who have sent more than 50 parcels to local boys of the fighting forces'. With determination they sacrificed, rationing food and clothing, holding community events to raise funds and buying Liberty Bonds to pay for the war until finally, on 15 August 1945, Prime Minister Ben Chifley proclaimed to the nation, 'Fellow citizens, the war is over.' News of the victory spread, and our nation was awash with relief and jubilation. Newspapers reported that in Blacktown 'a victory dance and community singing drew large crowds to the school of arts', where people revelled 'from dusk on VP Day to dawn next morning'. On the fringe of the celebrating crowds a woman stood, tears streaming down her face. 'They are tears of happiness,' she said, 'because soon now, my boy, and other mothers' boys, will be coming home on a leave pass that will never expire.'
Yet, for all the joy that the end of the war brought, once the festivities had subsided there were huge and daunting tasks to address. There were families to be reunited and many who were left forever altered by the war. There were tables in almost every household where the sacrifices of war had left an empty place—fathers and sons, husbands and brothers, friends and neighbours who never came home. There were communities to be rebuilt and, above all, there was a new peace to be assured. Prime Minister Chifley declared:
The Australian government … will give all that it has to working and planning to ensure that the peace will be a real thing.
Dispersal centres were established to provide returning personnel with information regarding employment, land settlement, housing, re-establishment loans, tools of trade and other available benefits. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme was introduced to provide educational and vocational training to everyone who had served in the war. The scheme also allocated weekly living and expenses allowances, as well as waived tuition fees. By 1951, 470,000 ex-service men and women had taken up the scheme. Perhaps most significantly of all, the Chifley government opened the doors of Australia to a great wave of migration, allowing old cultures to flourish again in a new land, enriching and diversifying Australian society.
In my electorate, the period of the late 1940s and 1950s saw a massive growth in population and development. From a quiet agricultural township with a population of just 14,000 prior to the war, Blacktown now found itself as an urban sprawl with a burgeoning community that had jumped to 85,000. These new arrivals brought with them precious keepsakes from homelands left behind. These keepsakes were treasured and proudly showcased and slowly but surely became ingrained in our community.
In Flushcombe Road, Blacktown, a continental delicatessen was opened which featured meats and foods from Europe, something unheard of in Western Sydney prior. Moreover, the hugely popular Warwick Theatre began midweek screenings of European films, particularly Greek and Italian films, to appeal to its new patrons. Today Blacktown is home to more than 30 different ethnic communities, and we all take pride in a nation and a world which has been transformed. Once-fierce adversaries have become staunch allies, and homogeneous communities have given way to vibrant diversity; yet none of it would have happened without what Prime Minister Chifley called the men and women 'against whose sacrifice for us there is no comparison'.
Indeed, whilst we all live in a much different Australia we are nevertheless bound today by what bound those men and women 70 years ago—the same commitment to freedom, democracy and security for our loved ones. In honouring that extraordinary generation, we therefore draw inspiration from their service and sacrifice and we pledge to uphold the legacy we have inherited from them. We also draw strength from the continued work of so many individuals across the spectrum, from national servicemen to other Returned and Services Leagues, particularly, in my case, throughout Greenway.
Indeed, on this noble occasion I am reminded of the words of the Seven Hills-Toongabbie RSL Club President, John Burgess, who said, 'It's our heritage; it's something a lot of countries don't have, and Australians have this heritage where they look to those service men and women.' May this heritage continue to serve as an enduring reminder of what we can accomplish when we work together to achieve our common goals. Our local community was changed forever by your courage. We thank you and pay tribute to you on this very important anniversary.
I would like to end my remarks by reflecting on the life of one individual who served our nation whom we farewelled last Monday, named Allan Dick. Allan Dick was born in Morningside, Brisbane, in 1921. He joined the Royal Australian Navy in 1939 as a signalman, when he was 18. As for many young Australians growing up through the Depression, hardship gave rise to determination. Like thousands of others, he saw it as his duty to fight for Australia but also as an adventure to see the world. This 'adventure' saw sailors like Allan Dick travel to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and of course the South Pacific, where he served from 1943 and for the remainder of the war on the HMAS Ararat, which was one of 60 Australian minesweepers, commonly known as corvettes, built during World War II in Australian shipyards, as part of the Commonwealth government's wartime shipbuilding program. The ship was built by Evans Deakin & Company in Allan's beloved city of birth, Brisbane.
It was dangerous work sitting in the bottom of the ship day after day, week after week, always knowing that, under attack, the signalman would never escape if the ship was bombed—a determination to fight to the end no matter what, to keep signalling until the ship went down, all the while suffering extreme seasickness.
This, of course, was at a time when families back home had little intelligence of the welfare of their loved ones, sometimes going for weeks and months without contact, and always only letters or the occasional telegram. The anxiety of loved ones cannot be comprehended, going without a single word—unimaginable in today's world of instant communication.
Allan survived the war and went on to become an entrepreneur, the owner of a number of businesses and the father of a gifted educator, Susan, and two sons who followed in their father's footsteps with public service through elected office: Cameron, a cabinet minister in the Queensland state government, and Milton, my touchstone, a Brisbane city councillor and the future member for Oxley in this place. Allan Dick was never defined by his time in the war, only attending Anzac services with his children and grandchildren late in life. But it is also true that the war shaped him as a son, a husband, a father, an employer and a role model to so many lives he touched. This parliament thanks you, Allan Dick, service number B/3388. May you rest in peace. Lest we forget.
It is a great privilege to be able to speak in relation to this statement. I do so perhaps differently to some of my colleagues but with the same purpose: to commemorate those people who fought for Australia and others who fought in the Pacific for freedom as we understand it. It was only recently that I attended a ceremony at Berowra, in my electorate, where I had the opportunity to share with so many others the opportunity to honour those Australians who served at that time.
I am not old enough to remember—I was born just in the war—but I did know something of the impact that the Second World War had on us here in Australia. My family at that time lived in Bronte. My grandmother used to describe to me the impact of the shells coming over Bronte Beach towards Garden Island. The Japanese, intent on invading Australia, brought their presence right to our door.
Nearly one million Australians served in World War II. Around 30,000 were captured as prisoners of war, and 40,000 made the ultimate sacrifice, never to return home. The Second World War was the first time that a foreign nation had carried out attacks on Australian soil. As I said, there were shells over Sydney, and certainly in Darwin the impact was very significant.
For me, however, it was those whom I knew who were involved in these tragic events who brought it home to me. During the Centenary of Anzac, we acknowledged the service of those in all wars and peacekeeping operations over a century of service. But, for many, and some of them are still with us, the Second World War is still very much in their mind. There have been commemorative events that have taken place, but I want to identify with a number of individuals whom I have known who were involved as prisoners of war who were taken to participate in the Burma Thai railway.
Early in 1943, the Imperial Japanese Army determined to speed up the 420 kilometres of Burma Thai railway, and they used 9,500 Australian prisoners of war, some 51,000 British, Dutch and American prisoners of war and 270,000 conscripted civilians as forced labour for its construction. Many died, tragically—some 2,646 Australians, 10,000 other prisoners of war and 70,000 civilians. That railway was completed six months after my birth, in October 1943.
It is amazing that many who served in that situation ultimately took the view that, in contributing to Australia and Australia's future, an engagement in public life would be appropriate for them. Some have only recently left us. A predecessor of the member for Werriwa, the late Tom Uren, was one of those who served. Can I simply say that he recalled, in a speech that he gave in this place in 1988, that there were 11 parliamentarians who had been taken as prisoners of war during that time, and he noted them all. They were members of this parliament. There was Charles Anderson MC MP. Tom Uren spoke on his death. The Hon. Sir Kenneth Anderson KBE, Ken Anderson, was a mayor of Ryde, later a senator and a government leader. His daughter, Robyn Kerr, whom I fondly remember, a good friend, worked for me in my electorate office for a time. There were Adair Blain MP; Senator George Branson; Sir Alexander Downer, our friend Alex's father; the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes MP; Thomas Pearsall; the Hon. Reg Swartz KBE MP; and Sir Winton Turnbull CBE MP.
I mention all of them, but I want to remember one particularly who is still with us. He has been a friend to many of us. I saw him at Tom Uren's funeral. I saw him at Malcolm Fraser's funeral. He is frail, but Sir John Carrick, the former general secretary of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, was very much a stalwart of the Liberal Party who gave leadership and certainly ensured the success of Sir Robert Menzies over a period of time. He is somebody whom I still regularly quote if I need to give advice to people about how they should conduct themselves in public life. I feel very privileged to have known him. I feel very privileged to know that he has mentored so many on this list.
He spoke some Japanese and was able to intervene and support those who were prisoners of war. His leadership in public life was something that he offered in that perilous situation. His is a unique contribution. He is well into his 90s now and frail, but I am delighted he is still with us. I know John Howard would want me to say, on his behalf, that he is a man who has been very special, as he has been to the member for Ryan and me.
I will show how small a world this is. I will make sure that before Jane Carrick puts me under anaesthetic in two weeks time I will convey the comments of the member for Berowra in regard to her farther.
At the outset I want to recognise the work of two RSLs in my electorate: Ingleburn and the city of Liverpool. Every year they support the work of John Baron and the Victory in the Pacific Committee in making sure this occurrence is remembered. It is quite appropriate that on their invitation letter they have that iconic photograph of the New Zealand citizen helping a blinded Australian soldier.
I will speak on a number of aspects of this, but not all are necessarily connected. Before I turn to Australia, I note the courage of Japan's Emperor Akihito in recent weeks in commemorating the Second World War when he chose, in a very deliberately way, to make a different point from Japanese Prime Minister Abe in regard to Japan's responsibility in the Second World War. Akihito spoke of deep remorse and a deep and renewed sense of sorrow about what had occurred. It was in contrast to Prime Minister Abe's comment:
The peace we enjoy today exists only upon such precious sacrifices. And therein lies the origin of postwar Japan.
Some people have seen that as a comment which, in a way, perhaps only stressed the Japanese wartime contributions and did not in any way recognise Japan's responsibility in regard to the Second World War.
I want to also make sure that I put on the record my continued association with people who think that it is overdue that the Japanese recognise one particular aspect of this—the exploitation of women for sexual purposes for Japanese forces in the Second World War. We are talking about a situation where approximately 200,000 women were utilised and supposed to undertake an average of 25 to 30 sexual activities a day. They were of varied ethnicity—Japanese, Korean, Chinese and to a lesser extent Taiwanese, Burmese, Indonesian, Australian and Dutch.
It is worth saying that, whilst some countries have chosen to see the rosy side of in Abe's words as being an indication of some movement, I think that the South Korean President was quite correct in saying that Japan has not gone far enough. I appreciate that China, to some extent, tries to exploit these issues for its own current geopolitical purposes, but there is a need for Japan to respond, to act and to recognise its contributions in regard to that war and the treatment of both war prisoners and servicewomen in that conflict. Earlier this year 187 historians called on Japan's government to 'show leadership by addressing Japan's history of colonial rule and wartime aggression in both words and actions'.
Of course, we should also remember the devastating loss of human life in the firebombing of Tokyo and the dropping of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima—the later cases were estimated to have killed at least 150,000 people. It remains the subject of international debate as to how necessary that was. Some, such as Gore Vidal, put forward that the position that the Japanese peace party was stronger than the Western powers have tended to indicate and that perhaps it was not necessary and was meant as a warning to the Soviet Union about the United States' position on nuclear weapons.
Of course, this war impacted deeply upon the country. Last year I went to Broome. I am typical of many Australians in that I had no knowledge of the Japanese's attacks on that town and the airfields and of the evacuation of Dutch refugees from the Japanese seizure of Java. I think we are still unaware of how many died in Darwin, because of the number of Aboriginal Australians who were basically wandering and unaccounted for. Then there were the attacks on Sydney Harbour in 1942. When we look at the number of places attacked—Derby, Port Hedland, Horn Island, Townsville, Katherine, Wyndham—it is quite extensive. I think that younger Australians have no appreciation of the degree to which the Australian mainland was affected, with Japanese forces landing on at least one occasion here for reconnaissance.
It was a period of very major national effort. On a personal basis, I am probably rare in having had both my father and his father involved in the Second World War. In both cases they cheated on their age to participate. My grandfather had been a gunner in the British forces in the First World War. He put his age down by three years to participate in the Second World War and he went to the Middle East. My father allegedly came crying from an enlistment post because he was not allowed to go. He was only 18 and they had increased the age to 19 in 1943. He was involved in the Pacific. His life was very much affected by this. For years later one of the big events would be Anzac Day and those friendships, that comradeship from the Second World War were instrumental in his life.
A previous speaker referred to the Commonwealth rehabilitation scheme. That was in a period when there was concern that the unemployment figure, after all of the wartime absences from the country, had started to lift to three per cent—today we would probably wish it was three per cent. As they left service, veterans were given a medical examination. A mental rehabilitation officer provided information about benefits eligible to veterans and training courses were available. Eventually 270,000-odd Australians got to university, technical or rural training courses. The case of my father was typical of so many of those people after the Second World War who had left employment at a very early age in the depression and who had not had trades. He got the opportunity thereby to go into the building trade, to get a skill to eventually be able to create a lifestyle for his family in this country.
I think it is important to remember the efforts of those governments at the conclusion of the Second World War that actually made sure that people were not forgotten and operated a rehabilitation scheme both in regards to employment and in regards to payments. That scheme provided for veterans with a disability not caused by military service while the Repatriation Commission oversaw the building of new hospitals to treat tuberculosis and mental disorders.
As I said, I want to recognise the fact that Australia's own citizens were directly affected and the fact that it entailed such a tremendous national effort not only for the soldiers at war but also for various people that were in protected occupations that were necessary for the war effort. Schools in Sydney were evacuation centres and all of that deeply informed the psyche of the Australian people.
It is also worth remembering some of the paranoia that affected this country in the Second World War to the detriment of ethnic minorities. We had a situation where Lutheran ministers were jailed as supposed Nazi sympathisers—one of whom, ironically, was a convert from Judaism, but they still thought he might be a Nazi sympathiser. The member for Berowra referred to living at Bronte. I met leaders of Sydney's Jewish community, who advised me that they were not allowed to live on the coastline in Sydney and had to live out at Wentworthville past Parramatta because we thought they might signal German submarines. There were anti-Japanese riots at Guildford—the suburb I come from—because a Japanese nurseryman had married an Anglo-Saxon years before and had created a very valuable business in Old Guildford and there was an anti-Japanese feeling towards him. He had married an Australian and had children who had featured in local newspapers during their family festivities.
I want to recognise the effort in the Second World War not only of the soldiers involved, not only of the sailors or air personnel, but of the large numbers of other portions of the Australian community, the sacrifices they made and the fact that some RSLs in Sydney still try to ensure that it is not forgotten.
We as Australians are fortunate that we have never been required to fight a war on home soil. A combination of our relatively short history of European settlement, our peaceful independence and our remote geography mean that Australia has never served as a major theatre of war.
But there was a time when we came extremely close. In 1942, invading forces reached what is now West Papua, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Northern Australian ports such as Darwin and Townsville were bombed. Japanese submarines staged a daring raid as far south as Sydney Harbour. Those were dark days in Australian history. Australia faced the threat of invasion from a Japanese military emboldened by victories across the Pacific.
It was only through the valour, bravery and, in some cases, the sacrifice of Australian service men and women that Australia and our allies were able to hold off and eventually defeat the Japanese and end the war in the Pacific. It is those men and women who we commemorate on 15 August every year on Victory in the Pacific or VP Day. This year takes on special meaning as the 70th anniversary of Japan's unconditional surrender on 14 August 1945.
The world has changed so much in the ensuing decades. Japan has transformed itself into a highly developed, peaceful and democratic nation, so much so that younger generations of Australians may find it difficult to comprehend that their grandparents and great-grandparents were required to fight a war for survival against a militaristic and expansionist Japan. But in early 1942, the world was a vastly different place. In late 1941 Japan had dramatically escalated the war in the Pacific through their invasion and occupation of Malaya and Singapore, and through their attack on US naval forces at Pearl Harbour. They had also begun to move on the Dutch East Indies—now Indonesia—and on New Guinea.
The remaining Australian naval vessels not already committed to the war effort in Europe were tasked with slowing the Japanese fleet as they moved ever southwards towards Australia. Among them was the Australian light cruiser, the HMAS Perth. Having already served as part of the Mediterranean fleet in the early years of the war, by early 1942 the HMAS Perth had returned to South-East Asia and was one of the few remaining allied ships in the region at the time. HMAS Perth, along with American, British and Dutch warships, made a valiant attempt to slow the Japanese advance. The Allies engaged the Japanese fleet in the Java Sea on 27 February 1942, sustaining heavy losses.
In an attempt to reach to the port of Tjilatjap the following evening through the Sunda Strait, the Allies once again
encountered Japanese naval forces. In fact, they had inadvertently chanced across the main Japanese invasion convoy, lying in anchor at Bantam Bay. The remaining Allied fleet, including the HMAS Perth, fought a desperate battle in the late evening darkness. At around midnight, the Perth was struck by a shell below the waterline. As it attempted to seek safety, it was torpedoed and sank 20 minutes later in the early hours of 1 March 1942. Of the 680 men on board the Perth, 357 lives were lost. Among the casualties was my uncle, Lloyd Righetti, a young Able Seaman. He was one of four brothers, including my father, who served in the armed forces during the Second World War. He left behind a widow and a daughter. His younger brother Sid served on both the HMAS Shropshire and the HMAS Quiberon, and thankfully survived the war.
Among the losses from the HMAS Perth, my uncle's story is just one of many. This single tragedy was second only to the loss of the HMAS Sydney in terms of Australian lives lost in naval battles during the Second World War. For the survivors there was little respite. Three hundred and twenty men were captured and became prisoners of war. Eventually, they were sent with other Australian prisoners to labour in brutal conditions on the Burma-Thailand railway. In such harsh conditions, one-third of those captured did not live to see the end of the war. Among those who survived was a young John Carrick, later to become Senator Carrick and then Sir John Carrick. He was a senator in this place and previously state secretary of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, and my former employer.
Thankfully, those lives were not lost in vain. It may have been difficult to foresee back in 1942, but the war in the Pacific was beginning to turn in favour of the allies. In time, the Japanese forces proved incapable of providing the resources needed to occupy such an extensive territory. Later in 1942, the Battle of the Coral Sea proved to be a decisive turning point. So too did the battles of Kokoda Track, where 625 Australians lost their lives and more 1,000 were wounded in unimaginable, difficult conditions. For the first time in this part of the world, the might of the Japanese fleet was repelled. This gave hope that the allies could ultimately prevail, and by 1945 we ultimately did.
Victory in the Pacific was not achieved through military might alone. Sustaining the war effort required the commitment of the entire nation and many cities and towns played a role. While supporting the war effort by other means, suburban Brisbane also played host to a top-secret facility that was unknown to residents at the time and did not become public until years later. During the war, Witton Barracks, located in suburban Indooroopilly in my electorate of Ryan, was the site of an interrogation facility for high-value Japanese prisoners of war. A joint US-Australian intelligence agency was set up in the requisitioned Witton Barracks facility. There, Japanese prisoners of war were questioned and captured documents were examined to gain information about Japanese military movements. Crucially, Japanese army code books were captured and translated. Much of the information discovered at Witton Barracks remains a mystery, as almost all of the documentation was removed by the American forces at the conclusion of the war. Remarkably, however, the interrogation buildings are still standing as a reminder of Brisbane's contribution to the war effort all those years ago.
The Witton Barracks site is no longer used by the Australian Defence Force, but it remains in defence hands. Steps are underway to ensure that the unique wartime heritage of the site is preserved. Brisbane City Council has submitted a proposal to purchase the site and maintain the heritage buildings, while reserving a corridor for a future bridge over the Brisbane River to deal with continuing population growth. This is a proposal that I wholeheartedly support and I have been working with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence to ensure that the Department of Defence understands and appreciates its merits.
If the Anzacs at Gallipoli created the legendary Australian fighting spirit, then the war in the Pacific only served to further enhance it. On VP Day, we commemorate all those who served and who died defending Australia as well as all those who contributed to the war effort back in Australia. Let their sacrifice not be in vain. In these more peaceful times, we unite with old allies and foes alike to remember that war exacts a terrible human toll on all sides, and that we should never again contemplate a return to large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Lest we forget.
It is a great pleasure to rise today to mark the 70th anniversary of VP Day and to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of all those who served and all those who died in World War II. VP Day, also known as the Victory in the Pacific Day or Victory over Japan Day, marks the end of World War II. It marks a day when, more than 70 years ago, on 15 August 1945, the Emperor of Japan announced Japan would accept the allies' ultimatum to surrender. Shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Ben Chifley's voice could be heard over the radio airwaves relaying this news to Australians everywhere. His voice beamed:
Fellow citizens, the war is over.
The Japanese government has accepted the terms of surrender imposed by the allied nations and the hostilities will now cease.
At this moment let us offer thanks to God.
Let us remember those whose lives were given that we may enjoy this glorious moment and may look forward to a peace which they have won for us.
Almost immediately, there was an outpouring of happiness, joy and celebration across cities and towns throughout the nation. Hundreds of thousands of people danced on the streets of Sydney and there were similar scenes throughout Australia and around the world. Since then, services have been held every year to recognise the significance of this day.
Last month, the Australian War Memorial held a number of activities to commemorate VP Day, including a last post ceremony and a wreath-laying ceremony. Hundreds of Canberrans attended the wreath-laying ceremony, paying tribute to around 150 veterans and their families who attended. The president of the RSL ACT Branch, Peter Eveille, appropriately claimed it was 'sombre and emotional day'.
The number of World War II Australian veterans is dwindling, with only 25,000 still with us and only 200 veterans who were prisoners of the Japanese still alive. That is out of the almost one million Australians who served in World War II, one-seventh of Australia's population at that time. The war left 40,000 Australians dead, more than 100,000 wounded and 30,000 who had been prisoners of war. For a relatively small nation, we played a significant role in World War II. We fought in campaigns against Germany and Italy in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa. We also played a major role fighting Japan throughout various Pacific nations, including Papua New Guinea, Malaya, Bougainville and New Britain.
Our home came under attack for the first time in history. Japanese aircraft bombed towns in north-west Australia, and Japanese midget submarines attacked Sydney Harbour. While 40,000 Australians died, more than 60 million people were killed worldwide. At the ceremony in Canberra last month, the Director of the War Memorial, Dr Brendan Nelson, said the Second World War was 'the most destructive conflict in human history' and 'changed the world forever'.
So, while we pause to honour those who served and pay tribute to the sacrifice they and their families made, it is also important to remember this dark part of our world history, to ensure we never repeat those horrors again. Sixty million deaths is a staggering, horrifying and sobering number. But most of all, it is a deeply saddening number. I think about the men and women who died, and the children, but also their families back home who were left forever broken-hearted; or the men and women who returned home to us, but were never the same, forever scarred by what they had done or seen.
There are no words that accurately describe just how much we owe the veterans of World War II—and in fact, all Australian veterans, and those who currently serve. But it is through services like those on VP Day that show our continued thanks and recognition for their service, and their sacrifice. We will always remember them. Lest we forget.
I rise to speak on the Prime Minister's motion to mark 70 years since the end of horrid World War II.
To Australians in the years 1939 to 1945, war was not something that was happening on the other side of the world; it was not a distant abstract prospect. When things were at their worst, there were battles being fought on Australia's doorstep—and in some cases on and over Australian soil.
In the Coral Sea, naval fleets of the Allies and the Japanese Empire massed in what was to be one of the biggest naval battles in history. In New Guinea, Australian soldiers fought against Imperial Japanese forces and ultimately halted their southward advance just a few hundred kilometres from Queensland. And, of course, my hometown, in my electorate of Solomon, came under direct attack.
Much is made in the history books of the Japanese naval attack on United States forces in Pearl Harbor. It is not as widely known that the same aircraft carriers that launched their aircraft against the United States at Pearl Harbor then turned west and steamed to waters just north of Darwin. The very same aircraft and pilots that had attacked the United States fleet base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii also attacked the city of Darwin, its harbour and its military bases.
On 19 February 1942, just before 10 am, 188 aircraft—including fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers—arrived over Darwin. They formed the first wave of the attack, sinking three warships, five merchant vessels and damaging another 10 ships. Just before midday the town's air raid sirens blasted again as 50 land-based bombers arrived over the city. These aircraft attacked the airfield, destroying aircraft on the ground and causing further deaths. That day, more bombs were dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbor, and around 243 people lost their lives. It was the first time a foreign power had shed blood on Australian soil. Over the years that followed, several other attacks took place in Darwin and Broome.
The Pacific theatre of World War II was in every sense very close to Australia. Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen lost their lives in direct defence of their homeland. Civilians, going about their business on Australian soil, lost their lives to enemy attacks. Seventy years ago, with the enemy at the gates, Australians from all walks of life came together and did what needed to be done to ensure their homeland's safety and security.
The efforts and sacrifice of those men and women seven decades ago has not been forgotten. In my first term in this place I put a motion to the House to recognise the bombing of Darwin in a national day of significance or observance. Many of my colleagues in this place had heard the speeches and had never heard about the bombing of Darwin, because it was a secret for many years. It was not taught in most Australian schools' curriculums. But it is taught in the Northern Territory.
On 19 February every year, Darwin stops to remember those moments 70 years ago. We pay our respects to those who lost their lives and those who were impacted. We stop to remember how these events changed our lives forever. The images of VP Day that marked the end of World War II were images of hundreds and thousands of people dancing in the streets, celebrating together the end of this horrible war; grateful that it was finally over. We have heard that the number of dead was around 60 million. It is an astronomical number; so many people, so many families impacted by the horrors of war. It is important that we remember and commemorate all those people affected by war, especially those who lost their lives.
In Darwin, like in most other capital cities, we have a cenotaph. Our cenotaph might not be as flash as those in other capital cities, and the Darwin RSL and other RSLs are lobbying me and members of the Northern Territory government to work together to build an eternal flame and upgrade our cenotaph to honour the people and families that were affected by World War II and World War I. Over the last few years the ex-service community of Darwin has rallied together to correct some errors and omissions on the plaques attached to the Darwin cenotaph. This was funded by the Anzac Centenary grants. Now every Australian serviceman from the Territory who made the ultimate sacrifice has their name accurately recorded forever in stone.
As I said, the RSL clubs and ex-servicemen's communities are now rallying around a new cause—the establishment of an eternal flame at Darwin's cenotaph. In this endeavour I am absolutely happy and delighted to support them. I wanted to bring these examples to the House's attention today to show that even now—a full lifetime after the bloody and horrific war—the sacrifices made by that generation, far from being forgotten, are still being remembered and being honoured. To this day Australian servicemen put themselves in harm's way so that their loved ones back home do not have to. To all Australians from all eras who have sacrificed a comfortable and safe life for the protection of others I say thank you—thank you, thank you, thank you.
At my electorate's largest RSL, the Elsternwick-Caulfield RSL in St Georges Road there are regular meetings of the 39th Battalion, including on the 60th anniversary that the famous militia battalion was sent untrained and almost unarmed to defend the Kokoda Track before the regular elements of the Australian Army got there. They went in 900 and, as the famous film and the great books about Kokoda outline, they came out 300. There is the famous assembly, the military parade that took place at the end of military operations, that the great Lieutenant Colonel Owen, their commanding officer, held. Those ragged men in shorts—barely clothed after months of fighting the Japanese all the way to the edge of Port Moresby—are owed great credit by Australia. One of the most moving moments of my time in office was to have the great Chris Masters show his film The men who saved Australia at the Elsternwick RSL, to have the 60th anniversary celebrations there and then, at the end of the film, to have the remaining 17 veterans of the 39th Battalion—that great Victorian battalion—stand up and take the credit that was due to them.
In referencing Victory in the Pacific Day, nothing had to be like it was. Had it not been for the magic intercepts in my electorate at the Monterey block of apartments on Queens Road—an anonymous block of flats now with no memory of what happened there—the American carriers would never have positioned themselves to the north-west of Midway and sunk the four Japanese carriers that came to attack that central point of American defence of the Pacific thereby altering the course of the Second World War. If the Japanese had cooperated with the Germans, if the carrier force they had sent to Trincomalee to sink the British fleet there had continued their cooperation with the Germans all the way to Suez, the war would have probably ended in a very different way.
I want to speak about a sequence of events that led to Japanese-German non-cooperation, which benefited Australia and could never have been foreseen. On 1 June 1939 Georgii Zhukov, the famous Red Army commander, was summoned to the Kremlin. He thought he was going to be purged and put in the Lubyanka, as 30,000 Russian officers had been arrested and many of them tortured into making ludicrous confessions. But when Zhukov arrived in Moscow he was ordered by Stalin to fly to the Soviet satellite state of Outer Mongolia to command the Russian army there. Something very unusual happened—the least-known battle in history, and probably one of the most important. The battles of Khalkhin Gol, also known as the Nomonhan Incident, happened on the Russian-Chinese border in the puppet state of Manchukuo that was run by the Japanese. To the great surprise of the very arrogant Japanese army—the Kwantung Army that controlled that part and had attacked into the then Soviet Union without consulting even their own government—they faced a massive defeat at the hands of General Zhukov and the Red Army.
Many people have wondered why, at the crucial point of the Second World War when Japan attacked the United States, there was no cooperation between Russia and Japan. One-third of all of the supplies of the Russians came across the Bering Strait from Alaska to Vladivostok and areas around there, without interception by the Japanese Army. There was virtually no cooperation against the Soviet Union by the Japanese on behalf of the Germans. Indeed, if you read some of the great histories by Antony Beevor or other great historians, you will discover that, as the Germans were about to arrive in Moscow in October-November 1941, the Japanese diplomats in Berlin were sending telegrams to their masters in Tokyo telling them to attack south: 'The Germans will conquer Moscow. They'll conquer Russia. There is no need for us to participate in that joint operation against the Soviet Union.' If that had not happened, the entire course of the war in the Pacific would have been different. The Russian Siberian army, after the incidents at Khalkhin Gol, was transferred almost in its entirety in front of Moscow, and that is what changed the course of the war in front of the Russian capital. As I said, the Japanese decision to strike south came as the result of that.
The total strategic noncooperation of the Japanese Empire and their ally in the Pact of Steel, Nazi Germany, is one of the great mysteries of the Second World War. It saved Australia. As the great Churchill instantly realised as soon as Japan attacked the United States, they had wakened a sleeping giant, and he knew from that minute that the Allies would persevere now that America was involved. We in Australia made our great strategic alliance with the United States. Our relationship was to bring back our troops from the Middle East. President Roosevelt, Mr Churchill and Prime Minister Curtin made a great decision to keep the Australian 9th Division at El Alamein, and the deal was that the Americans would bring a division here to defend Australia, as the Japanese were practically at the door. But strategically Churchill and Roosevelt were right. The decision of the Japanese and Germans not to cooperate together—the great strategic mystery of the Second World War—and the Japanese decision to strike south were inevitably going to lead to their defeat. Australia had many bloody years in that conflict in the Pacific, sometimes in a secondary role, but the safety of our country was preserved by that strange sequence of events that began with Zhukov's recall to Moscow and the decision to send him to fight the Japanese Kwantung Army in Mongolia. History would have been very different, however, if individuals—one can only describe them as immortals—from the Victorian 39th Battalion, the civilian militia who were sent up to the Kokoda Trail, had not fought every inch of the way back along that trail before the battalions from the regular Army, from the 7th Division, arrived to support them and eventually drive the Japanese out of a land attack across Papua New Guinea.
So let's thank goodness for the odd coincidences of history that strategically preserved Australia. Let's remember the great Pax Americana that has preserved all of those days since the end of the Second World War. One hopes that the peace and security of this region of the world is kept. We certainly have had a great period of economic prosperity, growth and peace ever since those days, with countries like Japan, Australia, China and all of the great countries of South-East Asia which have grown into maturity joining together in peace.
That was quite a speech by the member for Melbourne Ports, who was chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the previous government. He certainly showed that he knows his history. Well done. Good speech.
Another war historian of eloquence is Dr Ian Grant from my electorate of the Riverina. He is also the foundation principal of the Riverina Anglican College in Wagga Wagga, and he gave the keynote address at the 70th Victory in the Pacific commemorative service, held in the Victory Memorial Gardens at Wagga Wagga on 15 August. It was a splendid speech. In it, he noted:
The commemoration of VJ Day—
Victory in Japan Day—
is quite different from the Armistice in November 1918 or V E Day—
Victory in Europe Day—
in May 1945.
He told a crowd of about 90 people:
The unconditional surrender of the Japanese on 15 August was rightly celebrated because it meant the death sentences for the men and women who had become prisoners of war were commuted. The Sandakan massacre was the first of half a dozen mass executions that were being organised for prisoners in Ambon, East Borneo, Java, Sumatra and in Singapore.
The Allied High Command knew of the plans to massacre the POWs. They believed, that if there were an attempt to liberate the POWs in one of the camps then all the major other ones needed to be attacked at once, or the massacres would commence.
I continue to read from Dr Grant's fine speech. He said:
While this made military sense, it led to the agonising decision not to send forces to rescue the men from Sandakan as they were being marched to Ranau. There is evidence of at least two US and Australian commando patrols witnessing the forced march but unable to intervene for fear of sparking off mass executions of POWs in other places. For me, the most arresting section of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra is the individual photograph of the men on their forced march who perished over those few weeks. For almost seven decades there was an accepted historical version of the events that led to Japan's surrender. This was that the Japanese Government recognised there was no reasonable hope for victory and faced an unparalleled holocaust from the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the last five years, a new interpretation has emerged which suggests that it was not the bombs that formed the Japanese surrender but the Soviet declaration of war. This interpretation raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence that has been the foundation stone of military strategy in the post war period.
In 2012 Dr Grant visited Japan with TRAC, The Riverina Anglican College, and visited Hiroshima and the Peace Museum that has been built in that city. He spoke of this in his speech:
Because we were a school group there was an educational speaker who addressed this. This turned out to be a 74 year old woman who had been near the railway station at Hiroshima as an eight year old, and was able to give a personal account of her experience. There are no winners in war. As I listened to her account of her physical burns and later of being ostracised as a potential wife by Japanese mothers for fear of nuclear contamination, I could still see the faces of the men from the Riverina who were murdered by the Japanese army. What struck me was the relatively small area that was obliterated. The devastated area was three kilometres by three kilometres. Our speaker was four kilometres from the epicentre and survived.
He concluded his remarks in that very fine speech by talking of what needed to be done post war and of our understanding, concept and perspective post 1945:
Clearly we must revise our understanding and, with that, revise the narrative of the post war story. The traditional interpretation retains a strong hold over many people's thinking, especially in the US. The explanation that the bombs played the vital role is emotionally convenient and satisfying. Japan fought hard but faced with new terror weapons capitulated because of the terrifying impact of atomic weaponry. Thus Japanese honour is saved at a single stroke and the ability to blame the loss of the war on the atomic bombs sweeps away all the mistakes and misjudgements of the disastrous war under the rug. The bomb becomes a perfect excuse for having lost the war. No need to apportion blame; no court of inquiry need to be held. Japan's leaders were able to claim they had done their best. Certainly being able to re-case Japan as a victimised nation suffering under the horrors of nuclear radiation helped to affect or mask many of the morally repugnant things that Japan's military had done.
Similarly, the story that tens of thousands of US servicemen were not sacrificed because of US technological advances is a satisfying story but it is an unjust conclusion. Japan had been militarily beaten. The Australian soldiers fighting in 1945 in Bougainville, New Britain and Borneo were not a sideshow to an unknown new weapon but were playing a vital role in making the Japanese understand that they were defeated on the conventional battlefield. To raise the impact of the atomic bomb is to undercut the necessity for ongoing assault on the Japanese military position.
What difference to our understanding does the knowledge that it was Russian intervention and not the bombs that led directly to the Japanese surrender? What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has framed the world's thinking about nuclear weapons. The sheer horror of the destruction and the lingering poison of radioactivity has become the driver for the weapons to be seen as end-game weapons. The idea that more nuclear weapons actually deter your enemies from attending has become even more popular. The reality is that no nation has ever surrendered because of the levelling of population centres—Churchill didn't, Hitler didn't and Tojo didn't. The US wouldn't even if a city was destroyed. If killing large numbers of civilians does not have a military impact then what is the purpose of keeping nuclear weapons? In the 21st century they are far more likely to accidentally explode than be deployed.
A final thought is that for forty years, Russia was seen as our primary enemy. In reality the Soviets' decision to honour their agreement with the Allies was the prime reason 14,000 Australian POWs came home.
The 15 August VP Day 70th commemorations in Wagga Wagga were moving. Former serviceman Steve Trood, a former regular member of the Australian Army, collected sand from the very beach where Japan signed its surrender in 1945. He collected this while tracing the 105-kilometre Sandakan death march just last year. He sprinkled that over the beautiful monument in the Victory Memorial Gardens. Six Australians survived that dreadful Sandakan death march from the POW camp to Ranau as World War II came to a close. Mr Trood, one of more than 20 Australians to complete last year's trek, organised by RSL Life Care and Soldier On, addressed the crowd at Wagga Wagga before he sprinkled the sand that he brought home from Labuan Island over the beautiful memorial. That was followed by the TRAC Principal, Dr Grant, making a keynote address. After that, Wagga Wagga RSL Sub Branch President Kevin Kerr led The Ode, and the sound of bagpipes, splendidly played by Bob Scott, closed the milestone service.
On 2 September we had another very significant ceremony, the Battle for Australia ceremony, at which we heard the newly elected RSL President, John Gray, deliver a keynote address. We also heard the national anthem sung by OJ Rushton. I mention OJ Rushton because she conducted the RSL Rural Commemorative Youth Choir on Saturday, when the Kangaroo March stepped off from Wagga Wagga, but I will talk a little bit about that in a moment. In Mr Gray's speech, he said:
Australian forces were involved in World War II from the declaration of war on 3 September 1939. The early years saw the Navy in action on all oceans, the Army fighting in the Middle East, in Greece, Crete and Syria, and the Air Force supporting those Army operations and also operating from bases in Britain. On 7-8 December 1941 the Japanese entered the war by attacking American, British Commonwealth and Dutch forces in South-East Asia and in the Pacific. The Battle for Australia had begun.
… … …
In January 1943 the Japanese, having failed to capture Port Moresby, determined to render it useless as a base for allied operations by intensive bombing. To make their bombing more effective they set out to capture the airfield at Wau, which was much closer to Port Moresby than the base at Lae that they had been using. This was forestalled by flying in an Australian force in Dakota transport aircraft. In March 1943, a Japanese convoy of ships carrying reinforcements and supplies to their forces on the north coast of Papua New Guinea was almost totally destroyed by Australian and American aircraft in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. The Japanese no longer held the initiative. Hard fighting followed for another two and a half years in New Guinea, the northern Solomons, the Pacific islands and the East Indies, now Indonesia. Coordinated with allied strikes closer to Japan, this culminated in the Japanese surrender on 15 August 1945.
As Mr Gray pointed out, the battle for Australia had been won. It had been a hard-fought battle.
Mr Gray succeeded John Keyes as the Wagga Wagga RSL club president. John Keyes' great uncle, Sidney Keyes, was an original Kangaroo. I appreciate that this debate is about World War II and not World War I and that this speech is about the 70th commemoration of VP Day, but it was a very colourful, significant and historic ceremony on Saturday morning when we had the Kangaroo march—which is coming to a town near you over the next weeks—as the longest recruitment march in World War I was re-enacted. John Keyes' great uncle, Sidney, was wounded in action three times. He was a private in the 13th Battalion. He finally fell on the Western Front on 1 March 1918. He was a spirited young man who answered his country's call in its time of need and paid the ultimate sacrifice, like so many of them in World War II. OJ Rushton led the choir in a beautiful rendition of a song that she composed herself called Young and Free. It is a song for the ages. It is a song that could commemorate World War II, World War I or, indeed, any action that Australia has fought in. It is a wonderful song and was sung beautifully by the Youth Choir. I am sure it will be heard many more times as the Kangaroo march journeys from Wagga Wagga all the way to Campbelltown, its ultimate destination.
I will conclude with some comments about World War II and what followed. The book, Snowy: The people behind the power, by Siobhan McHugh, sums up what transpired after World War II concluded. The construction of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme between 1949 and 1974 still ranks as one of the world's greatest engineering feats. For Australia, it marked a passage from the old world to the new and became a monument to multiculturalism along the way. Two-thirds of the scheme's 100,000 workers were immigrants, newly arrived from more than 40 countries in war-weary Europe. The Snowy was to provide them with hope and with an opportunity to rebuild shattered lives and to try to forget the devastation and animosities of war. Mutual suspicions between new and old Australians gave way to cautious acceptance, and the disparate workforce became a skilled and united team which set world records in hard rock drilling and earthmoving in an environment of extraordinary racial and industrial harmony—all taking place in the Riverina. The mateship was not without cost. The work was dangerous, and the accidents claimed the lives of over 100 people. The Snowy gave us a hydroelectric scheme and an irrigation scheme second to none anywhere in the world. It just goes to show what Australia can do and what new Australians can do when they put their minds to it and when given the opportunity. Certainly that was one of the great monumental projects that followed World War II.
We have learnt a lot from the devastation of World War II—1939 to 1945. Let's hope that the world never descends into that horror again.
The 70th anniversary of VP Day is a very important event. It is apiece with the Centenary of Anzac and a number of commemorations around the country for the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay. Three weeks ago I went to the official opening of the 9th Battalion Association's First Ashore display at the Kedron-Wavell RSL; and two weeks ago I went to a VP Day service, once again at the Kedron-Wavell RSL; and a week or so ago I was at the Nundah-Northgate RSL for the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay. All of these events are of course directly linked.
The First Ashore display at Kedron-Wavell in the Milne Bay Centre is a moving and poignant tribute to Queensland's 9th Battalion. It was the first battalion recruited in Queensland for the Great War. It was the first ashore at Gallipoli and it remained there until the evacuation in December 1915. It then served on the Western Front, fought at Ypres, the Somme and the Hindenburg line and participated in the great allied offensive in 1918 at Amiens. The 9th lost 1,128 men, of the 60,000 who died in World War I. In those Western Front battles, the 9th fought alongside the 41st Battalion, my grandfather's battalion. He received serious shrapnel wounds at Ypres and was gassed for the second time at Morlancourt in the Somme Valley. He was one of the 156,000 who were wounded in the Great War. He came home a very sick man.
The 9th Battalion today is based at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, just outside the electorate of Lilley, but was recruited on the north side of Brisbane, particularly in the areas around Chermside. Of course, when it was recruited, within weeks of the beginning of the war, the locals turned out in big numbers and more followed. By November 1916 there were 6,400 men training in a camp at Chermside alone. So it is fitting that this display at the Kedron-Wavell RSL is located in the old Sandgate drill hall—brought from Sandgate to Chermside. The Sandgate drill hall was moved—and this is the important link with the 70th anniversary of VP Day—to its site at the Kedron-Wavell RSL as part of the 1995 Australia Remembers commemoration. That was a very important event. It was really the first time as a country we took seriously the task of communicating to younger generations the importance of the service of servicemen right from the very beginning of the formation of our nation. I believe that that 50-year anniversary commemoration has set the scene for the success of this year's 100 year centenary of Gallipoli commemoration.
A lot of work has gone on in the last 20 years since that 50th anniversary back in 1995. Many energetic volunteers and RSL members have become very much involved in moving into our local communities, particularly to our schools, to talk about the importance of service and the values that underpin it. This display located now in the Milne Bay Memorial Hall at Kedron-Wavell RSL is one more tribute to the resilience, the courage, the resolve and the loyalty of those who risked and lost their lives for their mates that they served beside and the home that they loved. It teaches a story of people who found the courage to do the truly extraordinary—to use the phrase that was used by Paul Keating some years ago. It is fitting that it is there at Chermside in the Milne Bay Memorial Hall.
In the Second World War, it was the 9th Battalion formed back in Chermside in 1914 that was again at the centre of an epic battle, the Battle of Milne Bay. It was a critical moment that prevented the Japanese invasion of Australia. It was the first defeat of the Japanese on land—in fact it is said the first defeat of the Japanese in a thousand years. So the Milne Bay centre was a very important part of that 50th commemoration and a very important part of the 70th commemoration.
The Battle of Milne Bay is also one that is quite close to me in that 73 years on my Uncle Charlie Stacey—who still lives at Bli Bli just on the Sunshine Coast—is one of the few veterans now left from that epic battle. It was one of those moments in the Second World War when the fate of millions literally did hang in the balance and the tide was turned in critical ways.
There were enormous events going on across the world—battles taking place at El Alamein, Guadalcanal and over the skies of Germany. The Battle of Milne Bay was not necessarily a large battle in terms of the number of soldiers on the ground; it was incredibly significant not just in strategic terms but, as I said before, because it was the first defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific.
I will just go back and talk about it: August 1942—an attachment of Japanese marines with naval and air support tried to outflank our position on the Kokoda Track. Their target was the strategically important harbour and air base of Milne Bay. Had they succeeded, they would have put a bayonet in the back of the thin khaki line that was preventing the fall of Port Moresby. But they were stopped by a rapidly assembled force of Australian militia troops—7th Division veterans from Tobruk, ack-ack gunners, airfield engineering units, Kittyhawk fighters from 75th and 76th squadrons and Boston bombers from No. 6 squadron. As I said before, this battle punctured the myth that the Japanese were invincible.
After Milne Bay, the Australians and Americans were always on the offensive. So this was a turning point in the Pacific that helped the victory of the allies. It was also a brutal, murderous and muddy encounter, as tough as war gets. On that sweltering bay, there were massacres of troops and civilians—later the subject of war crime investigations. There were no rear lines or support troops. Everyone there was under constant fire and constant attack. Construction workers fought with rifles. Men attacked tanks not with long-range guns but by crawling up to them to attach sticky mines to their hulls.
It was a place where the tropical wetlands bred malaria, and many soldiers were infected. One of the them was my Uncle Charlie, who fought in B Company stationed in Milne Bay when the Japanese arrived on August 25. He was sent home to Brisbane but went back to fight in Bougainville after his recovery. He returned once more just a few years ago with my three older brothers. He went to find some of the locals who had helped them, and they actually managed to locate a family that had helped him when he was there. These are incredible stories, and it is because of people like Uncle Charlie and all of those who served to whom we pay tribute.
Of course in this war my father was also in the Pacific. He was not in Milne Bay; he was in the RAAF at Tarakan and Balikpapan—roughly 5,000 kilometres from home and 3,000 miles from Milne Bay. He came home a different person. He went back to normal life and dedicated his life to working in the RSL. It certainly shaped my experiences of war. That is not to say that many of these men, including my father and my Uncle Charlie, were constantly talking about it; they were not. They did not talk about it.
One of the great successes of the Australian Remembers program 50 years ago was that many of these men did for the very first time start talking: first of all, to their families and then, more broadly, to the community. That event alone changed our country in many significant ways put together, as it were, by Prime Minister Keating, veteran's affairs minister Con Sciacca and in close collaboration with the RSL's ride around the country—which I believe was one of the most spectacularly successful community education programs that we will see in the life of our country. I believe it is now bearing fruit in the way in which the Centenary of Federation program is working.
It was very important in our nation's life that that conversation to bridge the gap between the generations started to happen conclusively as it did 20 years ago. Because many people of my age did not necessarily have—and certainly my children and their children would not have—the direct experience with war veterans that my generation had. So these sorts of commemoration programs are very important so that all of our community continues to honour and respect the service of our veterans but, more importantly, the values that underpin the service of our veterans. That goes to the very core of what type of country we aspire to be—a country where we respect our friends; where there is equality of outcomes; where mateship is seen as a valuable virtue; and where we will stand up and defend the principles of equality and democracy. These are the values that underpin the service and the sacrifice that has come before us. Of course, it is now honoured continuously in the work of our RSLs and a whole host of other affiliated organisations that have come forward to work with a new group of veterans of conflicts, particularly in the Middle East—Afghanistan, Iraq and many others. In fact, the number of troops on rotation in recent years is such that we have a much bigger group of people coming through who will need the same help that people like my father and my uncle Charlie needed when they came back from the war.
These are all of the reasons why we commemorate these important dates to remind ourselves once again of the importance and the purpose of service, the defence of democracy and the maintenance of a society which is not only prosperous but free and dedicated to the principle of equality.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who volunteered then to fight in that awful war so that we can live free today, because freedom is not free; it is earned. Every generation, it appears, needs to pay a price for that freedom because, unfortunately, we appear not to learn those lessons of history and therefore we tend to repeat them. Today, on behalf of the people of Tangney I thank those who served then and now.
The Americans have a wonderful term they use to describe the generation that fought in World War II. They refer to them as the Greatest Generation. However, it is critical that, in acknowledging the service and sacrifice of those that have gone before, our generation does not seek to rewrite history or try through the comfort of time and distance to seek to change fundamental truths of what happened in that conflict.
Relativism is a danger—a danger to world order and stability. Red lines simply do not exist when it comes to a relativist world view, and relativism allows evil to prosper in the world. But relativism is not the only danger; the second modern danger is that of revisionism. Revisionist history, while popular in parts, can be immensely damaging. History—or a common and shared history—is the usual starting point for the birth a new state. History is wound up by a thread of common values and beliefs. Going back and unravelling that thread questions the motives of those that acted. It goes to the question of who was right and who was wrong.
Before I go into the details of one of the biggest pieces of revisionism that tends to happen in the West, I think it is important to note that there are things that absolutely shock in war and that indeed shock us now. We see the images today of, for instance, the Daesh cult and the killings that they do. We see the issue of suicide bombers with horror. Similarly, in World War II, among a whole lot of other things there was massive horror and lack of understanding of the whole issue of kamikaze. So we need to realise that many of these things we are seeing as unique now simply because we do not look back far enough. If we look back far enough, we see similar things, and we need to realise that we need to deal with some of these things just as comprehensively and conclusively as those in the past.
But, to get back to the issue of World War II and revisionism: in the case of the Pacific War there is one standout incident that is periodically subject to historical revisionism—namely, was the US justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
Yes. There can be no other answer. Yes, it definitely was necessary. The US was, like the rest of the world, soldiering on towards the end of a dark period of human history that had seen the single most costly conflict in all factors in history, and they chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war by significantly shortening it. That was by use of atomic weapons.
It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take since they had suffered the loss of more than 418,000 lives both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the 135,000 death toll was worth it to prevent the 'many thousands of American troops that would be killed in invading Japan'—a view attributed to the president himself.
It must be remembered as well that the largest single-day death toll in Japan was the incendiary bombing raid that was conducted against Tokyo in April 1945 which likely killed over 100,000 Japanese. The issue of nuclear bombs was a consequence that was taken seriously by the US. Ordering the deployment of the atomic bombs was a terrible act but one they were certainly justified in doing.
The atom bombs achieved their desired effects by causing maximum devastation. It might seem a terrible thing—and it is—to talk about maximum devastation being an aim that has been achieved, but, as I will go to show, this maximum devastation was very much necessary to the Japanese psyche to result in them suing for peace. Just six days after the Nagasaki bombing, the emperor's speech was broadcast to the nation, detailing the Japanese surrender. Indeed, if you listen to or read Hirohito's effective non-acceptance of the course of the war when suing for peace that was unconditional, when he announced that unconditional surrender, he stated among other things that 'the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage'—this despite the devastation and two atomic bombs dropped.
Another argument defending the bomb is the observation that, even after the first two bombs were dropped and the Russians had declared war, the Japanese still almost did not surrender. The Japanese convened in emergency session on 7 August. Military authorities refused to concede that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic in nature and refused to consider surrender. The following day, Emperor Hirohito privately expressed to Prime Minister Tojo his determination that the war should end, and the cabinet was convened again on 9 August. At this point, Prime Minister Suzuki was in agreement, but a unanimous decision was required, and three of the military chiefs still refused to acknowledge defeat. Some in the leadership argued that there was no way the Americans could have refined enough fissionable material to produce more than one bomb.
But then the bombing of Nagasaki demonstrated otherwise, and a lie told by a downed American pilot convinced the war minister, Korechika Anami, that the Americans had as many as 100 bombs. The official scientific report confirming that the bomb was atomic arrived at the imperial headquarters on 10 August. Even so, hours of meetings and debates, lasting well into the early morning hours of the 10th, still resulted in a three-all deadlock. Prime Minister Suzuki then took the unprecedented step of asking Emperor Hirohito, who never spoke at cabinet meetings, to break the deadlock. Hirohito responded:
I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world.
He concluded:
I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer.
In his 1947 article published in Harper's, former Secretary of War Stimson expressed his opinion that only the atomic bomb convinced the emperor to step in:
… all the evidence I have seen indicates that the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept our terms of surrender was the atomic bomb.
There was a coup attempt. The coup failed, but the fanaticism required to make such an attempt is further evidence to the supporters of the view that the atomic bombs were required to end the war. Without the bomb, Japan would never have surrendered. The attempted coup was to try to continue the progress of the war. In the end, the military leaders accepted surrender partly because of the Emperor's intervention and partly because the atomic bomb helped them 'save face' by rationalising that they had not been defeated because of a lack of spiritual power or strategic decisions but by science. In other words, the Japanese military had not lost the war; Japanese science did. You can see that of course in Hirohito's own statement calling for the unconditional surrender. If the atomic bombs had not had the devastating effect they had, they would have been utterly pointless. They replaced thousands of US bombing missions that would have been required to achieve the same effect of the two bombs that, individually, had the explosive power of the payload of 2,000 B29 Superfortresses. Additionally, it showed the unequivocal power of nuclear weapons, and following World War II it kept the peace between the US and the USSR. There are no cases of a direct all-out war between the US and the Soviets, and that can obviously be attributed to the potentially devastating effects of atomic weaponry. Indeed, there were a number of occasions where, had it not been for the possession of nuclear weapons, a war would have been close to inevitable. The Cuban missile crisis is just one case in point.
Revisionist historians should be queried on both sides. By this I mean that there is an equal measure of danger in allowing a revisionist history view that Japan was a victim of Allied aggression. The same goes for revisionist historians who would dare question the reality of the holocaust. Our society should never cower from calling a spade a spade and should speak out in favour of good against evil. Those who advocate expressing remorse for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as Nancy Pelosi, should be aware that such gestures will be misrepresented by the revisionist right in Japan to paint Truman as a war criminal. We must forgive, but we must never forget.
The time for this debate has expired.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Wyatt be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure, that the Speaker (Mr A. D. H. Smith) be discharged as a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics, and that, in place of the Speaker (Mr A. D. H. Smith), Mr Hawke be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and that Mr. Laundy be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: Order of the day no 1, committee and delegation reports, being called on and debated immediately.
Question agreed to.
I thank the very insightful Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence for moving that motion to allow us to conclude this discussion about constitutional reform. This document, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples final report of June 2015, is indeed very timely, but it is also a very important report. I commend my colleague Mr Stephen Jones, who was a member of that committee, for the work of the committee in following, as they did, the expert panel in making a series of recommendations which I think have been broadly supported across the country.
Over the last weekend, I had the privilege of attending a state funeral at Yirrkala. This service was for one of Australia's most significant Aboriginal leaders over recent years, Mr Wunungmurra. Mr Wunungmurra had a life of leadership. He was the youngest signatory to the bark petition in 1963, which now, of course, has pride of place in the parliament. He was a Yolngu leader of high degree. One of his attributes was his continuing involvement in giving service to his community across a range of areas from health to education to outstations and, significantly, to the Northern Land Council as its chairman for six years. In that role, he had a strong view about the importance of constitutional reform and the need for us to address the Constitution to give proper recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. So it is, I think, fitting that, in so short a time after his commemorative ceremony, we are having this discussion here.
A lot has been said about this matter for some time. Indeed, it was first postulated by John Howard when he was Prime Minister. I have to say that the time has come. It is time for us to actually sit down and deal with the issues. This committee report fulsomely addresses the issues and makes a series of quite strong recommendations, which I think bear our support. But there is a process. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawke, that there was a gathering at Kirribilli at which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders from across the country as well as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and, among others, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the shadow minister and I were in attendance. It was a very uplifting experience because it gave me, at least, the impression that there was a strong bipartisan support for the idea that there should be constitutional change.
I attempted to point out, in referring to Mr Wunungmurra, that the Northern Territory is actually pretty significant in all of this. In my seat of Lingiari, around 40 per cent of the population are Aboriginal people. They have a significant interest in these outcomes. They are in a unique position in that context because of the depth of the population in terms of their thoughts about this constitutional change. I have to say that, as I travel around, it is very clear that there is broad support for the proposals, particularly those from, initially, the expert panel, which was co-chaired, as we know, by Pat Dodson and Mark Leibler. It is very important that we see the seriousness of their work and of the work through this report and, following that, the discussions that took place at Kirribilli, which, as I say, were quite uplifting in the context that they involved bipartisanship and they involved a contribution from significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, all wishing for a similar outcome.
But I have to say that there is a level of frustration now creeping in because, as a result of that meeting, there was to be set up an organisation, a committee, a referendum council, which is yet to be finalised. There were proposals from Aboriginal people to set up a series of conferences around the country involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is for the very good reason that the people who will be subject to this change, who will have the most impact from these changes, will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, the first Australians, who were not contemplated in the original Constitution. They have a significant interest—and, one would argue, the most important interest—in what is involved in the proposed changes, so it is important that they are allowed to have this series of discussions around the country.
But, sadly, it appears that the Prime Minister is not so enthusiastic about them, at least not in the sense that they should be separate or different from other meetings around the country. I would encourage the Prime Minister to understand that, whilst he might think, as he has expressed recently, that it might involve a log of claims, the fact is that it is absolutely imperative and that, if Aboriginal people across the country are not comfortable with the propositions which are being put, there is no point in putting them. I am certain, as a result of what we know about the 1967 referendum, that, if we allow this discussion to take place in a fulsome way and we fund the opportunities for people to meet, that in itself will be a positive step.
Clearly, whilst the Prime Minister may be a little reticent, he did agree to provide financial support for these proposals, yet at the moment, as I understand it, no funding has been made available, and there is still a view by some that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should be responsible for these meetings. I do not think that is the case. I think what the Prime Minister should do is support a secretariat which is run and controlled by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and provide them the funds to have these meetings around Australia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That does not mean that there cannot be concurrent meetings of other people, but it is really very important that we understand the imperative of having these discussions in this way. If we do not do this, then whatever is being proposed will find it very difficult to get the support in the community, where it is most needed. I understand that there will be differences of opinion across this country, but I am sure that people of goodwill who really appreciate the significance of these matters to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can come to agreement about what the proposed question should be.
There are recommendations in this report which lead to a discussion about what the question might look like, and I think we should be supporting those propositions. I know that the Prime Minister, for one, is more reticent. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he leave his reticence aside and allow a discussion to take place across the Australian community and that he provide enthusiastic leadership instead of having an impact which is seen to be potentially eroding the possibility of these discussions taking place free of the imposition of his views. It is very important that he rather more abstractly look at this to allow the discussions to take place and to see then what emerges. Of course, we know that it will now not happen through the course of this parliament—that is the question being put—but it is very important that we allow this process to go on. We need to realise that the delays which appear to be happening are causing some frustration amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country. It appears that somehow this issue may have been dropped down the agenda somewhat. We need to elevate it again. The Prime Minister is in the best position to do that, in concert with the Leader of the Opposition—because bipartisanship is absolutely fundamental. I urge both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that they operate in a truly bipartisan manner. I know the Prime Minister thinks he is, but he needs to do a lot more.
I was interested that the member for Lingiari said that, if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not comfortable with the process or the wording of the constitutional amendment, forget it. I can understand that. I can understand that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are going to have to be more than comfortable; they are going to have to be supportive. I come to this not quite as a newbie, because I have an issue in my own electorate. I think this issue of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is significant not for just electorates like mine but for the nation. I believe that we cannot move on as a nation until we resolve these differences with our Indigenous communities.
Furthermore, I often speak about communities having hope, being in some control of their lives and belonging somewhere. We are part of the tribe that we are—whichever tribe that we belong to, we belong somewhere. Where people fall by the wayside is when they have no hope, they have no control of their lives and they do not belong anywhere. The massive movement we are seeing at the moment of people across Europe—and even in our own region across South-East Asia—are people without hope and without control who cannot stay where they belong. Sadly, I look at the Australian nation and say that there are a group of us, a part of us, about whom you could truly say that many of them do not have hope, they have lost control and they do not feel like they belong. Therefore, we have the inspiration for the recognition of the Indigenous communities in our Constitution.
I was extremely interested when the House was debating the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The chair of the committee, the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, said a couple of things in his address to this House when he was tabling the report. He said:
This is a time to walk together, towards a common goal of an inclusive, vibrant, culturally-rich Australia.
He said:
That is the challenge we all now face.
I am confident that there is enough goodwill between the various interests in this issue that we can find common ground.
He said, 'The journey has been a long one.' I believe that this is more than a long journey; it is a journey that has been in continuum. It is a journey without an end because it is part of our nature—our DNA—and who we are as Australians. It is a part of our future because, unless we resolve these matters, however they are perceived, I do not believe our spirit can move on. We need to resolve some matters.
In fact, a matter of contention in my electorate for some years now has been the name of the electorate: McMillan. What can we do at a local level that recognises the anguish, concern, pain, tragedy and massacres that have occurred in my area? A number of books have clearly pointed out that there were massacres and chaos. In the book Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder, on page 121 he writes that, as early as 1840, Angus McMillan, a 30-year-old Scot in the employ of Captain Lachlan Macalister, decided to teach the Curnow a lesson in frontier law. McMillan had moved cattle into the area and was convinced of the huge pastoral potential of the Gippsland region but Curnow, probably aware of the damage wrought by cattle upon the native ecology, attacked this stock and dispersed them into bush. McMillan's response was to immediately form a posse from the stockmen and for the next few days marauded across the countryside, killing many Aboriginal people, men, women and children. He kept no records of the killings et cetera.
I think today we are still dealing with this grief that would have been expressed into the land. So when people came to me and said, 'We would like to change the name of your electorate,' I said 'Actually, I do not get a say. I have a view but I do not get a say.' The say is had by the Australian people through the Australian Electoral Commission. Because of the McMillan influence across Gippsland, I am quite happy that the name of the electorate be changed on redistribution to one that is acceptable to the community at large.
I have just read a press release that comes from the Prime Minister of the day and the Leader of the Opposition, standing together, working as part of this journey in their endeavours to resolve the issues so the nation—together—can come to a place where we can recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution, and other parts that are unacceptable to our Constitution, today, can be taken out. There were those who believed it would be short work and would be dealt with in this parliament. As the member for Hasluck has found out, as we go through the processes, beginning with the former government and now with this government—and it looks to be the next parliament—I do not think, after all these years, that we have to rush into or put pressure upon any people on any sides of the argument.
I understand there are many people with differing views on this issue. I would like to put my name to a desire for recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution, that they would be absolutely and totally drawn back in unison with the rest of our society, that we can walk down the street as one and a man will be judged for his or her character not his or her colour, that the differences and the fears that are held between the two nations are disarmed and the past years are melted away and we become one people with equal opportunities for all our children throughout the nation.
Having said that, there is a process of the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of Her Majesty's opposition of working together so that there will be further community consultation and a council to work towards this recognition. We can only hope and I am sure, in this, that there will be a continuance and in continuum bipartisan approach that we do not force anybody, we do not intervene in the discussions, we do not take sides, but we are determined to overcome the problems that are presented by all peoples—as the member for Lingiari said, 'People of goodwill working in the best interests of this nation.' I can only plead on behalf of my constituents that at least in this generation, my generation, the matter will be resolved and the nation can move on in a very strong and multicultural way.
It is my great pleasure to speak in relation to this the third and final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. It has been my great honour to serve as a member of that committee in this the 44th Parliament. The debate has a long history. For almost five years we have been to repeating this matter, within the Commonwealth parliament, in its current form. It has been a long time but nowhere near as long as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have occupied this land, the land of Australia, and that goes to the heart of what we are talking about here.
In January 2012 the expert panel handed down its final report after exhaustive consultation. Over 250 consultations were conducted by the expert panel. They handed down a very good report, which has been the touchstone for us who travelled the country and dealt with the joint select committee's deliberations on this matter. The committee had its origins in the resolution of this parliament in December 2013. The remit of the committee was to come up with a proposition that would meet the needs of constitutional recognition of the first Australians, be capable of gaining widespread support throughout the nation, across all sides of politics, and be successful at a subsequent constitutional referendum.
We have troubled on these things for quite some time. Through our consultations it has become quite clear to us that there are three things that are embraced by the concept of constitutional recognition. The first is, by and large, not controversial. It is: how do we craft a set of words that can be inserted in the Constitution, at the appropriate place, which recognise 40,000 years of continuous occupation, a continuous culture, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this country. And I think we have come pretty close to crafting a form of words—they are included in the report—which meet that requirement.
Of course, if we are going to the trouble of visiting the matter of the place of our first people in our Constitution then it behoves us to look at the provisions within it which offend the very thing which we are attempting to remedy—that is, those provisions within the Constitution which on their very face are discriminatory. When we turn our minds to that, clearly section 25 of the Constitution must go. I think it would surprise most Australians, even constitutional conservatives, to know that our Constitution specifically contemplates a circumstance where the states, on their electoral rolls, could deny certain people the right to vote based on nothing other than their race. Indeed, if states were to deny persons the right to vote based on their race, it would follow that those people would be excluded from a vote at a Commonwealth election as well. I think it would not only offend but also surprise most Australians to know that there is a provision such as this in our Constitution. So when we are setting ourselves to the task of inserting the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within our Constitution to address past discrimination, we must also extend ourselves to the task of removing those offensive provisions.
I think there is agreement on all sides of the House, and broadly within the Australian community, to those two propositions—that is, inserting a statement of recognition and removing the offensive provisions within the Constitution. But there is a third task that needs to be attended to as well, and that is: how do we ensure that the crimes of the past are not repeated by future generations? How do we ensure that we are able to put within our Constitution a remedy for the sins of the past? We do not have to go that far back into our nation's short history to see some of the sins of the past. I listened very carefully to the member for McMillan, who gave a thoughtful contribution—as he normally does—in this debate. He talked about the man after whom his seat is named, who was involved in what we would today describe as an act of genocide. But you do not have to go back that far. We have had instances of generations of children being removed from their families for no reason other than their race. We have had instances that have been brought to the highest courts in this land where people have been denied the right to purchase land for no reason other than their race. In my own area, I speak to some of the elders. They tell stories of their parents—or even themselves in their young days—being denied the right to shop in certain shops. And in the movie theatres there was a roped off area they had to sit in because blacks were not allowed to mix with white Australians when they went to the movies.
In a whole range of areas of Australian life, from education to employment, Aboriginal Australians were discriminated against. Of course, up until 1967 they were denied the right to vote. We had been a democratic nation for a full 67 years, but we had overlooked the democratic rights of the first Australians. But these were not only acts of a sovereign government, for the most part; these acts were not only permitted but contemplated by our Constitution. We know that from the decision of the High Court in the Kartinyeri case, otherwise known as the Hindmarsh Bridge case. In that decision, the majority of the High Court determined that the Constitution contemplated the sorts of discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that the plaintiffs were there complaining about.
So the third and final issue that we have grappled with, and which we have not yet found a landing on, is whether the Constitution should provide a restraint on the capacity of parliament to discriminate against people on the basis of race. This is something that people on this side of the House think we should do. And we argue that those who oppose such a proposition should make the case about why a sovereign government should have the right to discriminate against a group of people for no reason other than their race. We think, for the most part, that this offends our basic human rights. There are not a lot of rights that are recognised within the Constitution. It is prohibited for the Commonwealth to remove property without just compensation, but in our Constitution as it currently stands it is perfectly lawful for you to discriminate against somebody on the basis of their race. I argue that this should be the third limb of a proposition to alter our Constitution. And we need to find within ourselves something that we can all agree upon—a way that we properly restrain parliament from discriminating in a way that I think most Australians would agree was offensive.
In the time I have left, I want to focus on this one point. It is, across the chamber, widely agreed that we need to do this. I take the Prime Minister at his word when he says he is truly committed to constitutional recognition. But it is unfair of us as a parliament to ask the people of Australia to focus on something if we as a parliament have not focused upon it. That is why the committee recommends that both houses of parliament set aside a full day to debate the issue of constitutional recognition. And I think we would find that that would be one of the finest debates we have ever enjoyed within this house. We welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has finally agreed to conferences about our first people. I think this is an important step too.
But I finish on this point: it is simply unrealistic—nay, it is unfair—for us to ask the people of Australia to focus on something if the Prime Minister himself has not focused on it. For that reason, we ask that the Prime Minister shift this issue—this critical issue—to the top of his interests.
Our Prime Minister has said:
… modern Australia has an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.
Our Prime Minister is right, and we should be proud of each of those three concepts. Our Constitution should be something that unites us. But if we are looking at reform of our Constitution we cannot impute false motives into the current provisions. With this, I have an objection to and disagreement with some of the comments made by the member for Throsby.
I quote him from a previous speech, where he said:
We need to remove the stain of racism from our Constitution.
He has claimed that our Constitution is discriminatory.
Far from being racist, I believe our Australian Constitution is the opposite. It does not contain racially discriminatory provisions but it puts all Australians on an equal footing, no matter who their ancestors are, no matter what country they come from or no matter what background they have. That is something that ultimately we must aim for.
The first provision that is often described as a racist provision in our Constitution is section 25, which I will read:
For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of the race resident in that State shall not be counted.
At first blush, it is easy to consider—wrongly—that this is actually a racist provision. But when you look at the history of this provision you find that it is anything but. In fact, it is actually anti-racist.
If we go back into history, the real reason this section was originally included in our Constitution was because in the 1890s Queensland and Western Australia did not allow full-blood Aboriginals to vote in state elections. What the framers of the Constitution wanted to do was to ensure that this did not occur in federal elections and, in fact, to penalise those states that did so. In other words, rather than denying the franchise, the framers of our Constitution were giving support to Indigenous people from the very outset.
Professor Anne Twomey, the Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney said:
Much can be learned from the history of section 25. It was originally inserted in the draft Constitution at the initiative of politician, Andrew Inglis Clark during a drafting session on the Queensland Government’s yacht in 1891.
Clark was a big fan of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Despite influenza and sea-sickness, he managed to get modified versions of two sections of the US 14th Amendment into the draft Commonwealth Constitution. The first of these American provisions guaranteed “equal protection” before the law and “due process” of law to all persons within a State.
It has since become a major source of the protection of civil liberties in the United States. The second section reduced the federal representation of any State if it denied the right to vote to any male citizen over 21 years of age who had not participated in rebellion or a crime.
This is the US constitution—
Although it did not expressly refer to race, it was intended to protect the voting rights of emancipated slaves in the wake of the American Civil War.
Section 25 is all that we have left in our Constitution of the US 14th amendment. It was Andrew Clark's ambition to introduce the process of 'due process' and equal protection under law for all Australians, regardless of their birth or Indigenous culture—and to discourage racial discrimination.
Section 25 may well be redundant in our Constitution. Hopefully, it is something that we simply no longer need. But as Professor Twomey says:
… let us not treat it as a disgusting and shameful remnant of past attitudes.
We should treat section 25 as exactly what it was. We should see it as a small seed of civil rights planted by a noble man from a different age. We should not trash it unnecessarily and see racist motive where none exists.
The other section that is often referred to as discriminatory and racist is section 51 part (xxvi). This reads in full:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
… … …
(xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:
Again, at first blush this may seem to be a discriminatory piece of legislation. But not once has this legislation ever been used to lend support to racial discrimination against the Aboriginal or Indigenous people of this country. Not once.
Again, if you go back to the history and intention of that law in our Constitution, it was not for a discriminatory provision. In fact, it was for the exact opposite. It was understood that sometimes we would need laws that gave special provisions to overcome disadvantage. So if we are to look at changing our Constitution—and there are some provisions in our Constitution that are redundant—let's not look back to the founders of this nation and unfairly and incorrectly criticise them and say that they had racist intent when they wrote our original Constitution, because the historical record shows that that is incorrect.
We in Australia are not perfect. But from my travels around the world I have learnt that we are, second to none, the most racially tolerant country anywhere in the world. It is something that we all should be very proud of. As this debate goes forward—and it is a debate that should go forward in a bipartisan manner, with both sides of the House working together—let us acknowledge the work of our forefathers. Let us acknowledge the work of the Constitution. Let us say, at the foremost, that it is not a racist document in any particular way. If we can do that, we can all move together forward. We simply want a Constitution that gives equal rights and equal opportunities to every citizen of this country, irrespective of where they are born, irrespective of the colour of their skin and irrespective of their nationality.
Debate adjourned.
As I was saying before the debate was interrupted, when Labor introduced the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, I commented then that they needed to be aware of the unintended consequences. I said that taking over the accounts of people who have been saving money for travel and university would lead to problems. I urged Labor to withdraw the bill in order to facilitate further consultation. In the end, the chorus of opposition from the coalition and from stakeholders forced Labor to make seven amendments to their own bill. But the rest is history—the bill passed, and here we are three years later trying to clean up their mess.
Labor's undue haste and shoddy legislation belied the true purpose of this change. For all of their lofty rhetoric, it was always about a desperate cash grab to boost their flagging budget bottom line. In the financial year 2011-12, $70 million in unclaimed funds were transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Under Labor's changes, in 2012-13 this figure ballooned to $550 million—an almost eight-fold increase in a single year. This also came at a human cost. As the minister detailed in his remarks, for many Australians funds that were wrongly claimed by government meant cancelled holidays and delays in purchasing new goods. It meant that people who thought they had money saved away were placed in needless financial difficulty. This policy was a travesty that should never have been allowed to happen. Labor should be ashamed of the contempt with which they treated parliament and the people of Australia in ramming through their legislation.
This bill seeks to restore the arrangements that existed prior to 2012. It restores a requirement that accounts must have been inactive for at least seven years before funds can be transferred to the Commonwealth. This will cost the government $285 million over four years but will save the community $36 million each year in reduced red-tape costs involved when people lose and are then forced to reclaim their accounts—indeed, their own money. That is not to mention the peace of mind in knowing that their accounts are in less danger of being seized by government. No longer will accounts set aside for family purchases and holidays be under threat. Under Labor's laws, accounts named 'Deposit for house', 'Family holiday 2018' or 'Funeral expenses'—accounts that had clearly stated purposes and were clearly not dormant—were targets for seizure by the government. Under this bill, accounts such as these will be protected unless inactive for seven years, not just three.
The bill will entirely exempt children's accounts and foreign currency accounts from unclaimed moneys provisions. This is a common-sense move. Many Australians set money aside for their children's future, and this money should never be transferred to the government. Foreign currency accounts are used by sophisticated consumers as collateral to settle transactions. For this reason, they commonly lie dormant for long periods until, or if, they are required. In the interest of avoiding red tape, the government should not interfere in this process.
Also contained in this bill are necessary changes to the way in which the personal information of account holders is protected by ASIC. Contrary to Labor's claims back in 2012, there is no law mandating that banks and/or life insurers alert their customers to their unclaimed accounts. This means that individuals are often required to personally access ASIC's unclaimed money gazette, which is published online. The gazette publishes detailed personal information, including name, last known address and the amount of money they have unclaimed. This creates two unintended consequences. The first is the potential for identity fraud. The second is the emergence, emboldened by the controversy surrounding Labor's changes, of a cottage industry of unscrupulous companies. These companies use this information to target individuals, often charging excessive fees to return so-called lost moneys despite ASIC offering it as a free service. Changes contained in this bill will remove the requirement for ASIC to publish the unclaimed money gazette and will ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts, or their agents, will be able to access their data through freedom of information requests.
Labor can try to sugar coat it all they want, but there is no denying that tinkering with policy on unclaimed moneys was an unmitigated policy disaster. According to the Australian Bankers' Association, complaints about the provisions increased 300 per cent following the introduction of Labor's changes. Industry was not happy; consumers were not happy. This is why the coalition government is more than pleased to reverse this policy. It is all well and good for a government to seek out savings measures, but stealing money from the bank accounts of average Australians is not the way to do it. It is this sort of cynical, desperate policymaking that got Labor into trouble. It is now the duty of the coalition government to restore fairness to the financial affairs of Australians.
I commend the bill to the House.
Once again we stand in this place to speak on a piece of legislation that seeks to rectify the failures of the previous Labor government. Today we are speaking on the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, which seeks to reverse the previous government's changes to Australia's unclaimed money provisions. This bill delivers on the government's promise to reform the unclaimed money provisions and contributes to the government's support of Australian business and consumers by reducing red tape and regulation.
It is worthwhile reflecting that this is just another in a long line of commitments that this government has taken to elections and through budgets and that we are now bringing to this House. In the 2015-16 budget the government announced that it would make these changes to the unclaimed money provisions in the Banking Act 1959 and the Life Insurance Act 1995. This bill will amend the Banking Act and the Life Insurance Act to specify that funds in bank accounts and life insurance policies cannot be deemed to be unclassified and therefore transferred to the Commonwealth until they have been inactive for at least seven years. These changes will be effective from 31 December 2015. This bill will also introduce secrecy provisions into the Banking Act and the Life Insurance Act to ensure that even under a freedom of information request the particulars of the mount of unclaimed money or the person to whom the money is payable cannot be released to anyone other than the account holder or an agent acting on their behalf.
It is worthwhile reflecting that between 1911 and 2012 accounts had to be inactive for at least seven years before funds could be transferred to the Commonwealth. Under these rules, only $70 million of unclaimed funds were transferred in 2011-12. But this is when the previous, Labor, government—desperate to fill the gaping black hole of their endless continuum of budget deficits, despite the fact that they said they were going to return to surplus, which they never did—decided to pick the pockets of hardworking Australians and reduce the required period of inactivity in bank accounts from seven to three years. That resulted in some $550 million of ordinary Australians' funds, from thousands of accounts, being transferred in 2012-13, an almost eightfold increase in a single year.
As the member for Ryan rightly pointed out, many of these accounts were certainly not unclaimed or forgotten but the funds were transferred to the government regardless, in order to seek to improve their budget bottom line. For many Australians this meant cancelled or delayed holidays, delays in making home purchases they had been saving for and many other issues completely unforeseen or considered by those opposite. For many Australians the consequences of not being able to access their savings when they were needed were dire, and stories abounded of these measures putting many Australians in all areas in positions of financial difficulty.
This was never acceptable, and as an opposition at the time many of us stood in this House and spoke against this legislation. Now, in government, we are seeking to make it right. That is why during the 2015 budget we committed to reforming these unclaimed money provisions. To protect Australians with unclaimed money from this exploitation, the bill will remove the requirement for ASIC to publish the unclaimed money gazette and will introduce secrecy provisions to ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts or those acting on their behalf will be able to access their data. I even saw in my time prior to entering this place the operations of the sorts of organisations that seek to charge exorbitant fees for people to reclaim either their unclaimed moneys or their unclaimed shareholdings. Very frequently we were able to assist those people very simply and, at no cost, reclaim or get access to their funds.
This bill also amends the Banking Act to exempt funds held in foreign currency accounts from the unclaimed money provisions and to exempt funds held by or on behalf of an individual under the age of 18 from the unclaimed money provisions. It also seeks to ensure that if an account holder or their agent notifies their ADI that they would like their account to remain active any time prior to its transfer to the Commonwealth then that account does not have to be transferred.
As mentioned, this bill delivers on the government's promise to reform the unclaimed money provisions. This bill will leave more Australians in control of their own finances and will better protect their personal information and leave a safety net in place to protect those with truly forgotten amounts from having their value eroded by fees and charges. From 31 December 2015 this bill will ensure that the funds from Australian bank accounts and life insurance policies can be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission only after they have been inactive for at least seven years. This bill seeks to return or restore the situation to the way it was prior to 2012 and had been since 1911. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to support the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015. This bill provides effect to measures announced in the 2015-16 budget as amendments proposed to the Banking Act 1959 and the Life Insurance Act 1995. These amendments refer to the unclaimed money aspect of these acts. The primary feature of this bill is for the extension of the period of inactivity required before moneys held in accounts with an authorised deposit-taking institution or life insurance provider can be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
From 31 December 2015 this bill will provide that funds from Australian bank accounts and life insurance policies can be transferred to ASIC only after they have been inactive for at least seven years. In late 2012 the previous government reduced the required period of inactivity to three years. In opposition this government did not support this change at the time, and as promised we are now seeking to make this right. This is why in the 2015-16 budget we committed to reforming the unclaimed moneys provisions. This bill will restore the period of inactivity back to seven years.
This bill also exempts accounts being transferred to ASIC where the account holder provides advice that the account is to be treated as active. This will occur after the account is assessed as unclaimed money at the end of the year but before it is transferred to the Commonwealth. Previously there had been little time between accounts being recognised as inactive and the funds being subsequently transferred to the Commonwealth.
The provisions for unclaimed moneys to be transferred to the Commonwealth have been in place in Australia since 1911. Initially these provisions were to stop forgotten savings and life insurance policies from being eroded by fees and charges. Regardless, the unclaimed money is always claimable by the rightful owner. There is no time limit within which a rightful owner must make a claim. The money remains available to claim even though it has been transferred to the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund. After an account has been inactive for seven years the funds in the account will be transferred to the Commonwealth where they will grow tax free at the rate of the consumer price index.
As already noted, in 2012 the previous Labor government reduced the required period of inactivity to three years from its previous timeframe of seven years. This resulted in half a billion dollars from thousands of accounts being transferred to the Commonwealth. In many cases, the owners of accounts affected under the amendment to three years were aware of these accounts but believed the period of inactivity to be seven years. This placed a high number of Australians under financial distress at being required to reclaim money, especially the elderly—you can imagine the distress this caused them. For many this meant delays in purchasing new goods, such as a new washing machine, a new car or even having that hard-earned holiday. For some the consequences of not being able to access their savings when they needed their money were severe, particularly in regional areas where some found themselves financially in dire straits. There are even reports of some people having to sell their homes.
Returning the required period of inactivity before savings and life insurance policies can be transferred to ASIC to seven years is expected to reduce the number of effectively active accounts transferred to ASIC every year by up to 50 per cent. It is forecast that this change will cost the government $285 million over four years. However, the saving benefit to the community, and the reduction of red tape associated with accounts being transferred from and then returned to the account holders, is estimated to be $36 million each year. This is another example of how serious the Abbott coalition government is when it comes to reducing red tape for Australian consumers and businesses. With the changes in this bill taking effect on 31 December 2015 no account should be assessed as unclaimed until at least 2019 and no account funds should be transferred to the Commonwealth until at least 2020.
This bill also creates an exemption for those accounts that are created for children and, in addition, accounts held in a foreign currency. The exemption of children's accounts in this bill comes from the Australian tradition of being able to provide for your children when they need it most. Many Australians set aside money for their children's future. They trust that this money will continue to grow in value. They also hope that this money will be available to their children when, for example, they turn 18. This legislation acknowledges those Australians who are working hard to contribute to their family's future by ensuring money in children's accounts will not be transferred to the Commonwealth.
The exemption of foreign currency accounts is a further step in improving the legislation on unclaimed moneys. These types of accounts are utilised by sophisticated consumers in complex international business transactions. The transferring of these accounts to the Commonwealth can not only disrupt different types of international business processes but also result in the account holder being subjected to a financial loss. The funds being transferred to the Commonwealth would see them return to Australian dollars, which may result in a negative financial position for the account holder. Australian businesses competing in the global market deserve all the assistance they can get, and the exemption of foreign currency accounts from unclaimed money provisions is one way this government is helping Australian businesses.
Another key component of this bill is the protection of the privacy of individual accounts that have unclaimed moneys. The requirement for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to publish details of the account has been removed. The cancelling of ASIC's unclaimed moneys gazette will not make it more difficult for account holders to reclaim their funds. ASIC's primary online resource for Australians who are looking to reclaim money will remain freely available to all Australians with the website moneysmart.gov.au. The cancellation of this publication will help protect Australians with unclaimed accounts from exploitation. In addition, to protect those Australians with unclaimed moneys from exploitation this bill introduces a secrecy provision to ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts, or those acting on their behalf, are able to access their data via the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982.
In response to continual freedom of information requests, ASIC is required to publish a database on their website containing detailed personal information of each Australian with an unclaimed account. Names, last known addresses and the actual amount of unclaimed moneys are amongst the details published. The Australian Information Commissioner has raised concerns that the level of the information currently published online could enable identity theft. The concerns around identity theft are one thing; however, the depth of the details published have led to unscrupulous individuals and businesses using this information to charge fees as high as 25 per cent to reunite people with their own money. The government and financial institutions do not charge account holders for this service.
The provisions in this bill allow the government to combat problems associated with disclosing the identity of those with unclaimed money and deter particular businesses exploiting those seeking to reclaim their money. Such steps include restricting FOI requests—generally to an individual's own details—and the cancelling of the published unclaimed moneys gazette.
The extension of the time frame for unclaimed accounts from three to seven years is designed to assist a number of Australians. In helping Australians in this manner, the reforms in this bill also include methods to make it easier to keep accounts active. This bill ensures that if consumers indicate to their bank in any way that they are aware of the account before it is transferred to ASIC, it will remain in their control. Ensuring you are aware of an account can be as simple as checking the balance online or over the phone. As a result of these reforms, thousands of Australians will no longer need to search and apply to their bank or life insurance provider for the return of their savings. Similarly, banks and life insurers will no longer need to unnecessarily transfer millions of dollars of Australians' savings to the Commonwealth.
In undertaking such transfers, the banks and life insurers have also had to respond to thousands of requests for the funds to be returned. Quite often this was done in the same year the funds were initially transferred. With wide stakeholder consultation having taken place, this bill represents community expectations in regards to unclaimed moneys. As a result of these reforms, thousands of Australians will no longer need to locate their missing savings and apply to their financial institution or life insurance provider for their return. Likewise, financial institutions and life insurers will no longer be required to transfer unnecessarily millions of dollars of Australian savings to the Commonwealth, only to find that they then have to process requests for this money to be returned and, in many instances, within a short period that the funds were transferred in the first place.
This bill ensures the government is dealing with unclaimed money in the most effective way. As mentioned previously, this bill delivers on the government's promise to reform unclaimed moneys provisions and contribute to the government's commitment to reduce red tape. This bill provides for more Australians to have control over their personal finances, better protection of personal information and provide a safety net to protect those who have genuinely forgotten amounts in their bank accounts from having the value eroded from fees and charges.
I commend the bill to the House.
The government's Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015 is another important piece of legislation to reverse the chaotic policy implementation of the former Labor government. Changes to laws surrounding unclaimed funds introduced by the previous government showed a careless disregard for people's welfare, with many stripped of their valuable savings. It also shook people's confidence in the Labor government, especially in regards to the banking sector. This measure was too harsh. Moreover, Labor's reckless decision to change unclaimed many laws in 2012 after more than a century of smooth workability was just another example of unnecessary mess we have been left to clean up.
A functioning democracy is one where the people tell their elected representatives what they want. The elected representative goes back to their party or party room and speaks on the people's behalf. The late US senator, Arlen Specter, once said the essence of a democracy is a free electorate—that is, an electorate free to speak its mind, an electorate free to storm the offices of backbenchers just like me. The actions of the previous government were so reprehensible when it chose to take early possession of people's savings that it was little wonder so many from across my electorate did storm my office and those of other backbenchers across the nation. It was little wonder we were deluged with demands of people imploring us to act. They told us 'just change it back to the way it was'. They told us 'we are not happy with the Labor Party changing the law so that they can snatch our savings away'. They told us 'we want our money back'. We took their demands to the party room and the Treasurer. The party room and the Treasury listened and agreed to act.
Between 1911 and 2012, accounts must have been inactive for at least seven years before accounts could be touched by the government. In late 2012, Labor, in its infinite wisdom, reduced the required period of inactivity to just three years. This resulted in more than half a billion dollars from thousands of accounts being transferred to the Commonwealth. People were well aware of their account's existence and yet found them stripped of all savings when they tried to access them. This placed many Australians in a position of financial hardship.
The government's Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015 is another important piece of legislation to reverse the chaotic policies of the former Labor government. If the truth be known, we could have continued netting billions of dollars of public money—it was certainly a nice little earner for the Labor Party. Labor used these welcome funds to help address their disastrous financial mismanagement and we could certainly have used it to help with the disaster they left in their wake. But in the end, as I said, we are servants to the people. It is their will and wishes we must honour.
Changes to laws surrounding unclaimed funds introduced by the previous government showed a careless disregard for people's welfare, with many stripped of their valuable savings. It shook people's confidence in the Labor government and in the banking sector. As I said before, this measure was far too harsh and a bridge too far. I dare say, for backbenchers in the Labor Party, whose officers were also contacted, it would have been like storming the Bastille, with throngs of angry constituents demanding their elected representatives stop fleecing them of their savings. Sadly, they did not act. Labor's reckless decision to change unclaimed money laws in 2012 after more than a century of smooth workability was just another example of a party in chaos, devoid of direction and devoid of its founding principles.
Australia has had provisions to effect the transfer of unclaimed funds to government since at least the introduction of the Commonwealth Bank Act 1911. Returning the required period of inactivity to seven years is expected to reduce the number of accounts transferred to government each year by up to 50 per cent and reduce the regulatory burden on the community by $36 million a year. More importantly, as a result of these reforms, thousands of Australians will no longer need to locate their missing funds and apply to their bank or their life insurance provider for their return. Similarly, banks and life insurers will no longer need to unnecessarily transfer millions of dollars of Australians' savings to government and then process thousands of requests for money to be returned, often in the same year that those funds were transferred in the first place.
The government's bill will ensure that if you signal to your bank in some way that you were aware of your account before it was transferred to government, even by checking your balance online or over the phone, the account will remain in your control. This will be the case even if your account had been declared unclaimed. The unclaimed moneys provisions exist to protect Australians' forgotten savings and life insurance policies from being eroded by fees and charges over time. This is all about ensuring people are not disadvantaged. In 2013, approximately $550 million was transferred from account holders to the government. This compares to $70 million transferred to the government in the previous year. As was reported in Fairfax newspapers on 10 June last year:
Pensioners and others saving for a rainy day have reported trying to access their savings only to discover their money had been seized by the government because it had been dormant for three years or more.
Canberra has collected more money from inactive bank accounts under the three-year rule than the total amount captured in the past five decades combined.
Now, only after an account has been inactive for seven years will the funds in that account be transferred to the government where they will grow at the rate of the consumer price index, tax free. No matter what, these funds continue to belong to their rightful owner and can be reclaimed at any time through contact with either ASIC or their financial institution. There is no fee charged for this service. The government's changes are due to take effect from 31 December 2015. This means that no funds should be assessed as unclaimed until at least 2019 and no unclaimed funds should be transferred to the government until at least 2020. In addition, the government will exempt children's accounts from any unclaimed moneys provisions.
We know that many Australians set money aside for their children's future and trust that this money will continue to grow in value and be available for their children when they turn 18. This could well be money for university, money for a car or money to move in search of work. I could rightly argue that such funds are more important to young people in rural electorates like McMillan, where the practical need for university funds, a car or money to move in search of work is more acute. For many young people in rural electorates, where the tyranny of distance is all too common a concept, a small nest egg is essential if they are to seize future opportunities. Robbing them of it would be almost criminal. In recognition of this fact and to reward not punish those Australians working hard to contribute to their family's future, funds from children's accounts will never be transferred to the government.
We know the people want the system essentially changed back to the way it was. The proponents of this bill have done a commendable job in overturning legislation that was designed to take from the community rather than give. The government will always do its best to empower people to fulfil their full potential. Siphoning off their savings flies in the face of that. People should always know their money is secure and that it will not be raided by governments looking for easy revenue, though I can understand why that would have been a temptation for the previous government.
This government will always do its best to put the nation on a firm financial footing. This legislation will not only help relieve the stresses of those who would otherwise have been forced to knock on the door of government to get their own money back; it will clear another expensive layer of regulatory red tape. I commend this legislation for its important and welcome changes to the way we treat unclaimed funds and, more than that, for the way we treat the account holders of unclaimed funds. The people have spoken in a loud, united voice and the members of this coalition government have listened and delivered. Yes, the essence of a democracy is a free electorate, but a free electorate is defined by many things. A free electorate is one that has the ear of its local representative. A free electorate is one that can challenge one political party to fix the mistakes of another. In this wonderful democracy, the electorate is free and soon its unclaimed funds will be too.
Another fine contribution from the member for McMillan, who spoke about the robbery performed by Labor—robbery that particularly affected regional electorates. He represents a rural electorate, as do I—the Riverina. This Labor measure particularly affected regional constituents. He talked about how the robbery was almost criminal. Indeed, it was. Of all the policies enacted by Labor during those six sorry years from 2007 to 2013, I reckon this one was just about the bottom of the barrel. We saw Labor cut defence spending. I note the shadow assistant minister for defence is here. Labor cut defence spending to almost 1938 levels. Here we go.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the member would take an intervention?
Is the member for Riverina willing to give way?
I am happy to.
Could the member please set out for the benefit of the parliament in what year and to what scale there were defence cuts?
The cutting of defence spending was by Labor—
Mr Feeney interjecting—
You have made your intervention and I have happily accepted it. Under Labor, the cuts were to 1938 levels as a ratio of gross domestic product. I saw projects cut at Kapooka, the Army Recruit Training Centre responsible for the training of recruits, for the training of brave men and women. Projects for infrastructure at Kapooka were cut because of Labor. The only area where Labor wanted to spend money was buying back water for irrigation communities. There was always enough money for that, but there was never enough money for health or education—those important things that Labor always purports to represent but never does.
But I will tell you what, the bottom of barrel was then they tried to ensure that money was being trousered from children's accounts and from seniors' accounts. This bill will ensure that bank accounts and life insurance amounts cannot be transferred to the government until they have been inactive for seven years. The bill exempts children's accounts and accounts in a foreign currency from the unclaimed moneys provisions and better protects the privacy of account holders with unclaimed funds in order to limit the ability of some businesses to exploit them.
Up until 2012, accounts must have been inactive for at least seven years before they could be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. In 2012, this period was reduced by Labor from seven years to three years. This resulted in a large number of, effectively, active accounts—things we heard the member for Ryan talk about such as education funds and funeral accounts, and all these sorts of things—being transferred to ASIC. That left many, many Australians financially stressed. Shame, Labor, shame.
The previous Labor government made such a mess of the budget during its time in government, it was constantly looking for more cash. This was just robbery at its worst. In October 2012, a despairing Labor government with the member for Lilley as its Treasurer, desperate for cash, announced changes to the unclaimed moneys provision, which reduced the period of inactivity required before bank accounts and unclaimed life insurance amounts were transferred to the government from seven years to three years. These changes caused significant and ongoing disruptions for effective account holders and the financial services industry. This was a direct attack on people's bank accounts and a most inappropriate grab for money by Labor.
I have had my house robbed and there is nothing worse. Could you imagine going online or into the bank or your financial institution and looking to see what your bank account was up to and realising that all your money was gone? 'Where has it gone?' 'It has gone to ASIC.' Labor just did not care. Labor did not have one single care for those people who were saving for a holiday; people who were saving for a tertiary education for their children or their grandchildren; people who were saving to put money away so they would not burden their kids when they died.
I can give you one such example. A 95-year-old Hervey Bay pensioner had $50,000 forfeited from her bank account because it had not been used for seven years. Her family were warning others to be aware of the laws being put in place by Labor. And they were put in place by Labor, member for Batman:
Craignish resident Jan Powell said she was shocked last week when she went to check on the status of an account her mother opened in 2002, established to pay her own funeral costs, and found the balance had gone from $49,000 was zero.
It went from $49,000 to zip; $49,000 to diddly-squat, nothing, zero, zilch. How disgraceful. Then there was the rigmarole that people then had to go through to get the money back. Sure, some might say it is an easy process; some might say it is a perfunctory job of the banks to fill out a form. But some people are not good at filling out forms. Some people get worried and stressed about filling out these forms to get their own money back. It is absolutely disgraceful.
We call those people 'Nationals'.
Listen to it, would you! He rubbishes the National Party but that is why the Nationals are in government; to fix up the mess left by his mob.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
We are in government with the Liberal Party. Don't worry about that. And you are sitting on the opposition benches—for good reason. It is because of policies such as this very one that we are debating tonight; that is why you are on the opposition benches and why you ought to stay on the opposition benches.
Up until 2012, accounts had to remain inactive for at least seven years before funds could be transferred to ASIC. The previous Labor government reduced this to three years, resulting in a large number of active accounts being emptied and leaving many Australians financially out of pocket. This change resulted in about $550 million, more than half a billion dollars, transferred from 156,000 Australian accounts to government coffers in the 2012-13 financial year. I will just repeat that: more than half a billion dollars, transferred from 156,000 Australian accounts to government—aka Labor—coffers in the 2012-13 financial year because the member for Lilley was so desperate. He could not come up with any more ways of cutting back and paring back—all the other Defence spending, all the other priorities, like health and education.
It was not Robin Hood, but I tell you what: it was a real bushranger policy. It was stealing from—I will not say 'stealing'; that is probably unparliamentary and I will get pulled up for it. I will just say: it was taking from people's hard-earned accounts and putting it into government coffers.
Before the period of inactivity was reduced by Labor from seven to three years, only $70 million was transferred as unclaimed money in the previous 12 months. The coalition at the time—and I remember getting up here a couple of times and talking about this—said this change was completely inappropriate. They said it would seriously inconvenience people from across Australia, particularly regional Australia, and especially the Riverina and the people from McMillan, who for a very sensible reason put money aside in their bank accounts for a rainy day.
Labor went after people's bank accounts in utter desperation. This was a clear and conscious attack on people's money. And who was financial services minister in the previous Labor government?
Who!
Who was it, Member for Hughes? Any guesses? The member for Maribyrnong—that is who it was—who is now the opposition leader. He was the financial services minister during the time that Labor brought this unscrupulous bill before the House.
The Australian people cannot trust Labor when it comes to managing money. Smart people know that. Labor's changes to the unclaimed moneys provisions increase the regulatory burden after the volume of accounts being transferred dramatically increased overnight. So it is ironic that Labor went after people's money in a desperate cash-grab, booked as Commonwealth revenue, to improve the bottom line, only to increase red tape and expenditure due to the substantial increase in regulatory burden. And that is precisely what we are getting rid of.
It was started by the member for Kooyong, who is now the Assistant Treasurer, for good reason. He did such a good job cutting red tape and regulatory burden that he was promoted, and he is doing a fine job as the Assistant Treasurer to the member for North Sydney. Thousands of accounts were literally transferred and subsequently reclaimed back from ASIC. Account holders then waited for up to six long months for their money to be returned, leaving some people and families financially distressed and with good reason.
Labor's changes to the unclaimed moneys provision caused substantial disruption and financial distress for affected account holders, which is why in opposition the coalition opposed Labor's changes. Upon coming to government the coalition released a discussion paper to consult—and there is something that Labor never did; they never talked to stakeholders. We went out there to see how we could improve the unclaimed moneys provision. The result is this bill before the House tonight.
Specifically the coalition sought to reform the unclaimed moneys provisions, suggesting the period of inactivity for personal bank accounts should be increased, exempting a broader range of products, reducing the regulatory burden and tightening privacy concerns. These changes were also recommended as part of the financial systems inquiry.
Increasing the time period of accounting activity from three to seven years will reduce the regulatory burden and is consistent with the government's policy commitment to slash a billion dollars' worth of red tape and green tape each and every year. We are getting on with that very important job of government. The amendments proposed to reduce the regulatory burden in this legislation will generate $36 million in savings each year and reduce the fiscal balance by $158 million over the forward estimates.
Notable industry stakeholders support the government's bill, following public consultation and discussion processes and the release of the draft exposure of the bill. A very good endorsement came from the National Seniors chief executive, Michael O'Neill. He said Labor's three-year limit is 'just ridiculous'. He went on to say:
Older Australians may not touch their secondary or back-up accounts for a few years. It does not mean it is unclaimed or indeed inactive and certainly it is not necessary for Government to become involved and seize the funds.
Of course, Mr O'Neill is absolutely, 100 per cent, correct.
This bill will reverse the unorthodox changes that Labor made in a desperate grab for cash when it was in government. It will ensure the personal bank accounts and life insurance amounts of all Australians cannot be touched unless it is distinctly obvious that they have been inactive for seven years. The bank accounts of children and accounts in a foreign currency will be entirely exempt from the provisions, as they should be. The government recognises that accounts are often opened and set aside for a number of years before the account holder will access them. That was certainly the case with the Hervey Bay pensioner who was saving money for her funeral so she would not burden her children with an unnecessary cost in the order of thousands upon thousands of dollars. She did that so they would not be left to find that money at what is a very sad and difficult time for families—when they lose the matriarch of their family, or lose a loved one. She had set that money aside, and it got pinched, stolen, thieved. People make these personal decisions based on their own circumstances, as our Hervey Bay pensioner did. It is not the business of governments to interfere in the finances of individuals. It is our job to get out of the way and let people get on with doing what they do best.
The changes in this legislative amendment will also provide increased protections for individual account holders. Specifically, it will cease the publication of the unclaimed moneys gazette so that personal information of account holders is not published online, and restrict freedom of information requests in order to protect individuals' details. The government's objective has always been to reunite people with their money as swiftly as possible; Labor's was to separate people and their money as quickly as possible, and to that extent it worked. But the Liberal-Nationals understand, appreciate and acknowledge that people's money is their own and should be used by them for whatever purpose they intended it for—not to prop up the member for Lilley's budget deficit and debt.
We are true to our word when we were in opposition. We said we did not support this initiative implemented by the Labor government and supported by the Greens and, I have to say, by the Independent members for New England and Lyne at the time. Thank goodness those seats have now gone to National Party members! We made the commitment to the Australian people that we would fix it and, proudly, we are now delivering the legislative amendment to do just that. This is good legislation. This is necessary legislation. This is appropriate legislation. It needs to pass this House to fix up the mess that Labor left and to end the wrong that was done.
It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015. This piece of legislation is just another example of the mess that this coalition government have been left to clean up, the mess that we have inherited from the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Let me go back to the history of why this legislation is needed. In the dying days of that Labor government—after they had wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in reckless politically-motivated spending—they had a desperate need for cash. There was little difference between the government's desperate need for cash and that of a junkie eyeing off the cash drawer at a petrol station. Do you know where they went looking for cash? They went looking for cash in the private bank accounts of Australian citizens.
They passed a law that deemed that the money in every single bank account in this nation that had not had a withdrawal or a deposit in as little as the last 36 months would be transferred to them. That was any account with no withdrawal or deposit—and that does not include interest payments from the bank. So unless you had actively gone into the bank and made a withdrawal or deposit in your bank account in the last 36 months, that money was taken from your account and put into the coffers of the previous Labor government for them to spend.
What happened? They cleaned out—wait for this number—156,000 accounts across the nation. I see the member for Parramatta is down there at the desk. I know she is a very avid doorknocker around her electorate. That works out to be around 1,000 accounts for each electorate represented by the 156 members of the House of Representatives. Where we might have 40,000-odd households, that works out to be one household in every 40 in this nation that had their accounts raided by the previous Labor government. And the amount that was raided was $550 million—$550 million was raided from 156,000 bank accounts across this nation and transferred into the coffers of the previous Labor government.
Let me give you some examples of a few of those 156,000 accounts. One belonged to 82-year-old Maura Stanford, who had put some money away in case she needed some repairs done to her house. She had put money away for a rainy day. That day came and she needed a tradesman. She had $12,000 in that account. Do you know what happened? The tradesman came and when she went to get money to pay the tradesman the money had gone. The money had been taken from her own personal bank account and transferred to the accounts of the Treasurer under the Labor government. The account had been cleaned out. She went to the bank and said, 'What do you mean my money is no longer there?'
The staff at the branch had to comfort her. She was in tears, trying to understand how anyone had the right to take her money. She was forced to get an expensive cash advance on a credit card, and she said, 'I never thought I'd see the day when this sort of thing would happen in Australia.' Neither did I. Never did I think I would see the day that a government in this country would raid the bank accounts of Australians simply because they were inactive for 36 months, but that is what happened under the previous Labor government.
And guess who was financial services minister during this period. Guess who: the current opposition leader of this nation. He was in charge of financial services of this country. You would have thought there would be someone on the Labor side of parliament that had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and simply say: 'This is wrong. We cannot raid the bank accounts of Australians.' But there was not a whisper. It was all under the control of the former financial services minister, the man who portrays himself as the alternative Prime Minister of this country.
Another one of those 156,000 people that had their money raided was a Queensland pensioner named Adrian Duffy. Mr Duffy had put aside $22,000 in case he had a medical emergency. That medical emergency arose, and he needed a quintuple heart bypass. He came out of hospital hoping to access that money to pay his medical bills, and guess what: his account had been raided. Every single cent of the $22,000 that he had in his account was raided and taken by the previous Labor government.
It did not stop there. They even went into children's accounts. There is the case of young Seamus Hadfield, aged five, and his younger brother, Eamon, aged three. Their grandmother had put $3,000 in their account for when they grow up and get older. Do you know what happened? That $3,000 was again cleaned out and reduced to zero. Their mother said, 'Who expects governments to raid the bank accounts of children?' That is what happened under the previous Labor government: they raided the bank accounts of children to pay for their reckless and wasteful expenditure, and they want to come back and have control of the treasury bench of this nation again. This is just incredible.
There is also a list of celebrities that had their bank accounts raided. There was Buddy Franklin. He had 520 bucks taken from his account. The tennis player Sam Stosur lost $1,219, Mark Bouris lost $200, and of course good old David Koch lost $2,033. The list goes on and on and on and on. In fact, today there are probably more than 100,000 Australians yet to discover that their money was taken by the previous Labor government.
How can we put this in some context? If we look at this in a historical context, I am confident in saying this is the second largest raid of bank accounts in the history of the world. I would like to go through a few of them. I have the top six raids of bank accounts in the entire world over history. Coming in at No. 6 was the Great Train Robbery in 1963, when 16 robbers stopped a train called the Night Flyer. The train was carrying high-value packets and banknotes being sent to numerous banks in London. A hundred and twenty of 128 mailbags were removed, and the robbers made off with $74 million.
Coming in at No. 5 was the Knightsbridge Security Deposit robbery of 1987. Led by the famous Italian criminal of the time Valerio Viccei, the bank heist took place in July. The Knightsbridge Security Deposit was known to have famous clients and patrons and therefore valuable economic resources attractive to a cunning criminal. Once they had taken control of the bank, the already notorious bank robbers called for backup, and these guys ransacked and robbed the bank of $200 million in cash, jewellery and more.
Coming in at No. 4 of the biggest raids of banks in the history of the world was the robbery of the British Bank of the Middle East in 1976, when $210 million was taken. In the midst of the chaos of the civil war in Beirut, Yasser Arafat's PLO used brute force to gain access into the bank by blasting through a wall that was shared with a Catholic church. Using the help of Corsican locksmiths, they cracked the bank's vaults and got away with $20 million to $50 million in gold bars, cash, stocks and jewels, which is equivalent to $210 million today.
Coming in at No. 3 was the Dar es Salaam robbery of 2007, when $282 million was taken. The heist of the Dar es Salaam bank, located in Baghdad, is still considered one of the largest robberies in history. It happened during the war, when people took advantage of the bank's vulnerability. The money was stolen by security guards who slept at the bank overnight. When the employees came in the next morning to work, they found the front doors open, the vault doors ajar, the guards missing and the money gone.
The second biggest raid of bank accounts in the world's history was what should be described as the great Australian bank heist of 2013, when, in the dying days of the previous Labor government, $550 million was raided from 156,000 accounts of Australian citizens. This is the second biggest bank heist ever in world history.
Do you know what comes in at No. 1? The only one that could beat them was the Central Bank of Iraq robbery in 2003, of $920 million. Starting on 18 March, the day before the US began the bombing of Iraq, almost $1 billion was stolen from the Central Bank of Iraq during the course of several robberies. It was undertaken by Saddam Hussein's son Qusay, who over five hours loaded the money onto trucks. The location of the money remains unknown, but since Saddam was the ruler at the time it is possible no laws were broken, though corruption was undoubtedly involved. These incidents executed by Qusay are still considered robberies and were viewed at the time as an attempt to hide the money that Hussein obtained unethically and stole from his citizens in the first place.
This is something that is unprecedented, not only in our nation but in the history of the world—for $550 million of people's money in their bank accounts to be raided. Is it any wonder that we cannot find on the speakers list a single member of the opposition? Looking through this legislation, they are probably all cowering under their desks in their offices. The chamber is completely empty, apart from the poor and lonely member for Parramatta sitting there at the dispatch box. Not a single other Labor member is in the chamber. Is it any wonder? I am sure they are hanging their heads in shame. They have claimed that they were actually trying to protect the accounts of people. So they wanted to take their money to protect it? What an absolute farce.
One of the most important things about a successful economy is that people have confidence in the banking system. We need a system of government where people can put their money in a bank account and not be fearful that the government will raid it and take it away from them. But that is exactly what happened during those Gillard-Rudd years—absolutely outrageous. We are fixing this. Once this legislation goes through, never again will a child's bank account be raided by a government. Grandparents and parents can put money in their children's accounts knowing that the government will not come in and raid it as they did before. Secondly, we are making sure that all of those who had their money taken and absconded with by the previous Labor government will get it back. We are putting in a system where people can go online and put their name in and check if their bank account was raided by the previous Labor government. I encourage everyone listening to parliament tonight to go to that website and put their name in, because there will be over 100,000 Australians who simply are yet to be aware that their bank accounts were previously raided by the Labor government.
This was an appalling piece of legislation. It is at least good to see the Labor Party have come to their senses and are supporting this legislation, which I understand. But it does not undo the shameful piece of legislation they brought into this parliament—the disgrace of raiding those bank accounts of Australian citizens. Ultimately, this goes back to a matter of trust. If the previous Labor government could not be trusted not to raid the bank accounts of Australians, if they reduced the time to a mere 36 months before they deemed money unclaimed and claimed it for themselves, they simply cannot ever be trusted to hold the Treasury bench again. This legislation is just one of the many pieces needed to clean up Labor's mess. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to speak on the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015. The rolling back of the legislation passed in 2012 by the previous government is a very clear demonstration of the years of profligacy under the Labor government—the huge increases in spending, the huge promises of new money for everyone and the projections, more than a decade into the future, of great rises of income, without any idea of how to fund the promises. In this case, it was a very aggressive attack on every hollow log they could find. There are two ways that governments can wriggle out of a tight economic spot and try to cover it up. One is to delay committed expenditure and the other one is to bring forward tax receipts. In a way, that is what the government tried to do in this area. They altered a system that had been in place for 101 years. In my opinion, if something has been in place for 101 years—and it obviously was not broken—there is no really good cause to go playing around with it. But, no, the Labor regime thought they could move things to their advantage. They changed the period after which bank accounts would be deemed inactive from seven years to three. The act that was put in place in 1911 was aimed at protecting people's forgotten accounts and, in the latter-day world, superannuation accounts from fees and charges. But this became just another way to rip off Australians. From memory, at the time, the government said it would raise in excess of $70 million. But it was to be one-off—so $70 million to the budget bottom line.
I liken this to the emptying of a pipeline. Perhaps with water pipelines it does not make much sense, but, if you know anything about gas, the pipeline system is the storage system and you can shut down the gas pipeline and harvest what is within it but, before you are back to full pressure again, you have got to fill your pipeline back up. So it was with this modest line of income that was coming to government when accounts had been inactive for seven years. This legislation was put in place, initially, to protect people's investments in the longer term, so they could go back and find their money later on and find it had not been whittled away. Labor brought forward the discharge out of that pipeline, if you like, by four years. It was to give this $70 billion-plus one-off dividend. But in fact it did much more than that. It provided $550 million in the first year. If it had worked as the Labor government had proposed, and had just brought forward the four-year receipts, it should have delivered about half of that. But in fact this distortion meant that they swooped on lots of active accounts—accounts that people considered to be active; they just had not looked at them for a couple of days. In a way, this money should be like a loan to government until you discover where it is. But it is not like that—some of it sticks with government, and that is what they were so keen on.
So it caught up a whole lot of new accounts—not active for three years but certainly not forgotten. The owners knew exactly where the money was. They wanted that money so that they could buy a new fridge or a new car or do some house repairs. They knew where it was and, when they went to use it, it was not there. The government at the time had taken it away from them. That is when the stress started. The phones started running hot when the owners of the bank accounts went through the process of trying to redeem their money. They did not ask for this. They were metaphorically sitting on a rock watching the river gently drift past them when all of a sudden the financial services minister at the time, the member for Maribyrnong, the now Leader of the Opposition, had his hand in their skyrocket—firmly planted in that old back pocket—and he was taking the money out while they were sitting there watching life go past them. It was wrong then and it is still wrong—and we are going to fix it.
The owners of the money, the mums and dads and perhaps even the grandmas and the grandpas and even the children—as the previous speaker mentioned—were totally bemused. They had put their money in the bank—it is as safe as the bank, after all, isn't it?—and found that, no, it was not a shyster or some internet scam that had taken the money out of the bank; it was the government. The then government had moved legislation to remove their money. I do not blame them for being upset. That was when they started contacting their federal members. I was one of them. Fancy having to go to the government to get your money back that the government took without your permission. It really is a pretty difficult pill to swallow. And it has destroyed a lot of people's faith, at least to some extent, in government.
What a great little earner for the government of the day, though, it has to be said. It worked well for the Labor Party at the time. But, as I said, it was wrong when it was introduced, and we in opposition opposed it—I opposed it in opposition—and it is wrong now. We made a pre-election promise to undo it, and today we are delivering on that commitment. But, unfortunately, it costs. Just as the Labor Party emptied that pipeline and more, to undo the legislation it takes money to fill it back up again. In this case it is going to cost the government, the taxpayers, $285 million over the next four years to put back what was taken away. But it must be done, because it is immoral, it is unjust and it is unfair. There are a couple of upsides, though. On the positive side, it will save Australians $36 million a year, because they will not be fighting to get their money back. Just dwell on that: they will not be fighting to get their money back.
This bill goes further. It allows for the account holder to advise that their account is still active and it can be maintained by lowering the threshold qualification for active. The account will in fact be deemed active if a customer checks the balance in their account. The bill exempts children's accounts—and so it should. For many years, parents and grandparents have given gifts to their children—when they are born, when they are baptised and for other reasons. Often those accounts are never added to; they are just left there in the bank. The parents might pick it up and say, 'We are going to convert this into your school savings account,' and, in that case, it will be managed and will remain active. Other accounts just sit there, and they know that when they turn 18 they will be able to access those funds. But, before they get there, all of a sudden they have found that someone else has been accessing those funds. That will no longer be the case.
The bill will also exempt accounts held in foreign currencies, just because of the risk it imparts on people when foreign exchange movements take place at a time when that currency may not be favourable to them—at inopportune times, if you like. The bill also stops the publishing of a list of unclaimed money along with the names, and provides some level of secrecy to protect accounts and the account holder from thieves. When I say 'thieves' I mean the common garden variety thieves, not the thieves of government that were thieving their money—but you know what I mean. So this bill ticks a lot of boxes. In opposition we opposed the previous government's changes. During the election campaign we promised to undo their changes—and we are now delivering on that promise in government. This bill fixes a sin and should at least restore some faith in government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the short time available to me, I beg your indulgence to use this opportunity to talk about a couple of other issues in the banking industry that are loosely associated. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister recently announced that we were not pushing ahead with the bank deposits tax. We are served pretty well by our banking system and the strength of the big four, and generally they operate well. But there are times when I am left wondering about some issues. One issue is the current interest rate on credit cards. I think there is a moral obligation in this game. The banks are protected by good legislation, and we saw during the GFC that government was willing to underwrite the banks so that there was not an uncontrolled rush on them. The quid pro quo is that they treat Australians with respect. I think interest rates charged on credit cards is an issue that should be addressed by the banks. It would be good banking practice for them to bring them back to more realistic market levels.
The other issue that I have come to deal with personally is the renewal of fixed deposits. I have had some firsthand experience with this. I have had fixed deposits in the past, but I do not at the moment. When I was managing my parents' affairs—they have both passed on now—I dealt with fixed deposits, and now I am somewhat involved with helping my parent-in-laws manage their financial affairs. You become used it. When your fixed deposit matures, the bank sends you a new offer to roll it over and it is generally about one per cent lower than the one you had before. If you are aware of this, that is fine; you ring up the bank and they immediately give you your one per cent back, and you think, 'Why did I have to do that?' The problem arises when people are not closely in touch with their financial affairs—for example, old people, in particular, who just get the paperwork and say, 'Oh, well, the interest on this money isn't doing very well now, but I guess that is what I have to expect.' I see this pretty much as a grade 1 scam. As I said before, banking is a two-way street. They operate in a well-regulated safe environment. They have seen the backing of government in the past. On these two particular issues I want to see them lift their game. I want to see them give a better run to Australians, because in both cases—high interest on credit cards and the rollover of fixed deposits—particularly affect the poorest, the least educated and the elderly in our community. I just think that is unfair.
If any banking organisation is listening to this and wants to take this issue up with me, I will be more than happy to talk to them. If they can explain to me that what they are doing is fair, I will have my ears open, but they will have a lot of explaining to do. Thank you.
I rise to talk about the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2005 and I am quite proud to be able to talk about this bill in the parliament. As a farmer walking around my farm, I was shocked in 2012 that our government could stoop so low as to take money away from people who should not have had money taken away from them.
'I am an economic conservative'—they were the words of Kevin Rudd in 2007. It is easy to say that you are an economic conservative when the accounts were already balanced and there was surplus in the bank when the Labor Party came into government in 2007. But being an economic conservative is not just a statement. It is about choices. It is about making decisions. It is about governing.
Wealth is the combined sum of the efforts and endeavours of everyday Australians. Being entrusted to manage funds is a huge honour and a huge responsibility. At the heart of good government is good economic management, but to have good government you first need a heart.
This bill is not so much about history. It is not so much about what the Labor Party did at a desperate time. This is actually about character. It is about the decisions you make in the tough times. The contrast is that in 2012 the economy was not easy, and yet the Labor Party decided to take money from the sick, the elderly, the poor and sporting groups. I will give examples of exactly those kinds of people within my electorate.
The economy is not much better now. You can look at the economic indicators, and we are still walking through a very tough time but the very difference of character between the Labor Party and the Nationals and Liberal coalition is that they are changing this bill. No-one in the Labor Party wants to talk about this bill, because the Australian people know this bill epitomises character.
When things got tough, the Labor Party had a great idea: 'Let's actually take money out of people's bank accounts.' Surely, there would have been some in the party room—and I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of the Labor Party party room when this discussion was raised. Where are the people who used to be the shearers? The people who remembered that $1.50 used to be what you got paid for dragging out a heavy crossbred ewe. That was the Labor Party, wasn't it? They were the shearers. Where were the people who bent their backs all day to make 200 bucks? They know the value of money and they know how hard it would have been to put money aside and how their mothers put money aside—$6,000. They knew it was sitting in a bank account for their funeral so that, if something happened to them, they would not be a burden on the family.
How many workers have that view—'I just don't want to be a burden on my family. I'm going to put money in a bank account, knowing that it's going to sit there.' Where are those people? Those people who used to represent the workers used to sit in the Labor Party. That is where they came from, but not anymore. Because if they did, they would have stood up at the Labor Party party room meeting in 2012 and said, 'That's an idea that's just simply unpalatable. Good one—yeah, I know: governments come up with crazy ideas, but we'll never let that one go through to the keeper. That's a nonsense. You're seriously considering taking money out of people's bank accounts that has only been sitting there for three years.'
That is just something that would never have got through the Labor Party of old. They walked through difficult times when they were in government in the Hawke-Keating years, but it would never have got through. Even 'Mr Spend' Whitlam would never have got that one through, because they had workers in the Labor Party who understood that it was hard work to save money and put it in a bank account; and governments should not touch bank accounts.
But there was no-one there. At least no-one that we know of—at least maybe they weren't leaking; I will give that to them. But where was the person who crossed the floor? Where was the person in the party of collective thought who crossed the floor and said, 'Actually, I'm representing my constituents. My constituents are poor. There's no way known that I will stand by and let people take their bank accounts.' But they did not, because in fact it was 2012. The polls were tough. They knew they needed to spend, because they had been spending. They got in in 2007 and they spent. Even though Kevin Rudd had said, 'I am an economic conservative,' he proved in his actions that he did not have the heart or the internal fortitude to be an economic conservative.
They spent like a drug addict who needed to get more money so that they could continue their spend; like a junkie: looking for money to pay for their next hit. So much so that they would essentially take from the poor, and the poor they were. The Birchip Cemetery Trust was a little country town's cemetery trust. People who had put bequests and people who had put money aside so that the gravestones could be maintained in a cemetery in a country town—they took their money. They took $63,000 from a dried fruit grower who had put that money aside for a drought—and a drought came. They took that money. It took them six months to try to reclaim that money, with no interest and lots of paperwork. The farmer had the money put aside to put his crop in. He went to get the money to pay for the fertiliser to seed the crop in May and could not get it till August. Anyone who knows anything about grain growing knows he missed the whole window. Think about that for a moment. Shame, shame. I very rarely criticise the other side, but this was the worst policy. This grain grower lost his farm. He could not put the crop in, could not get the money to pay, the bank would not loan him the money and it took him six months. He asked for an active grace payment. This was disgraceful and this is the policy that the Labor Party put in.
Of course you would think that the person who came up with this policy you would relegate to the back bench. In fact, they would not win their preselection if they brought up a policy that was going to essentially rob the bank accounts of hardworking Australians. You would not promote this person politically. Instead, what have they done? They have put up the member for Maribyrnong—the now Leader of the Opposition, the now person who they want to present to the Australian people as a fit and proper person to be the Prime Minister of Australia at the next election—the person who came up with this idea, pushed for this idea and implemented this idea when he was Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, to be the Prime Minister.
I ask the Australian people: does this really sit with you? This shows the character that, when things are tough, your money is their money. Not only is it taking from the cemetery trust, from the farmer who had money put aside to put his crop in and from the dried fruit grower; it is also from the children of Australia.
One of the things that has concerned me for a very long time is the economic understanding of how to manage money with our children. We always tell them we need to continue to train, to learn, to save. 'Don't buy that, son; save for it and, when you can afford it, you can buy it.' That is what I was told. I remember that, as a child, we used to have free-range chooks on our little farm. We used to go clean and pack of up the eggs. Ten cents a packer. About an hour's work was roughly 60c. You would write it down and you would save up and save up until you could get something you wanted. That is what we want to encourage in our children.
I lament the credit card culture. I lament that people think they have got to have it and have it now. I think our society is poorer for it. I lament that we do not have lay-by anymore, that we put things on credit card. But how do you instil in our children that they should save, that they should open a bank account, if that money is then raided and taken by the government? Of course that money just sits there; it is there to accumulate. It will gradually accumulate, and you can teach them the wonder of accumulating interest and how that can add to their net worth. But the member for Maribyrnong, the now Leader of the Opposition, was prepared to go to the children of Australia and take their money. This is not a fantasy. This is not a story. This is a historical fact now simply because the economy was tough.
Contrast that with our government, which still has a very tough challenge ahead of us as try to pay the bills and run the economy with character and decency. Amongst all that we are choosing to put right a wrong. We are choosing to say to the children of Australia that we want them to save. We are choosing to say to the children of Australia that we want them to learn the value of good economic management. We want you to put money aside in a bank account and we are not going to steal it from you. We are not going to take it from you. We are going to let that grow so that one day you might be able to buy a car. One day you might be able to buy a video or a DVD—or now you buy it all on Netflix. One day you might be able to buy something you really enjoy, a Father's Day present or something like that. But, if it is in your bank account, it is your money. It is not the government's money.
I think this is a real lesson for the Australian people because today marks two years of government. Sure, we have not done everything right. Government by its very nature is made up of imperfect people governing imperfect people. It is clunky by its very nature. But the one thing we have done is gradually tried to restore the economy, gradually tried to renew confidence for the Australian people and do that in a way that is ethically sound. Contrast that with the person the Labor Party is putting up now as the potential Prime Minister: someone who when things got tough went after your money, when things got tough went after the cemetery trust's money, when things got tough went after the farmer's money and when things got really tough went after the children of Australia's money. Who do you trust to run the country? You will have to make that decision in probably 12 months or fewer from now. All I can say is: look back. In 2012 there was a person who stood up in a party room and then implemented a policy that took away the money of the children of Australia, as opposed to our government, faults and all, who whilst in tough economic times are restoring confidence that you can put money in the bank and it will be your money, it will be respected and it will be safe.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, because it reverses something that I and many of my colleagues have been advocating the reversal of strongly since 2012. As the member for Mallee quite rightly said, how unusual that not one member from the other side is here to speak on this bill. It is because of their sheer shame and embarrassment in confronting the implications of this measure they brought in on everyday Australians. I can recall, being an avid cartoon watcher as a young man, seeing Sylvester Junior occasionally come across the screen with a paper bag on his head, totally shamed by what his family had done. I guess the Labor family feels like that about this bill, and that explains why we do not have one speaker here in relation to this bill this evening.
The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years are remembered for many mistakes and, as a recent ABC television special reminded us, extraordinary disloyalty and dysfunction. Many things that Labor did during their term in office impacted on and upset everyday Australians. I think it is fair to say that is why Labor received their lowest vote in 100 years. We can all remember Fuelwatch, GROCERYchoice, the set-top box scheme, cash for clunkers, the green car scheme, the solar panels program and the Indigenous housing scheme. You might recall there was going to be a computer for every child in every school. And what happened to all the trade training centres and GP superclinics? As Australians quickly learned—when you think about that history—a Labor-Greens announcement was all doorstop and no delivery. We had the disastrous, overpriced and rorted school halls program, with over a billion dollars wasted. There was meant to be a childcare centre on every corner, you might recall, to stop the double drop-off, as the doorstop said, but that never happened.
Remember them unpicking our border protection policies that worked. Remember the disastrous pink batts scheme that resulted in four deaths and is the subject of a royal commission. Recall the back-of-the-envelope Rudd-Conroy calculations for the $70 billion National Broadband Network and think about that for a moment—$70 billion committed without any cost-benefit analysis. We can recall the $900 cheque giveaway sent to dead people and to overseas backpackers. We can recall the mining tax, which raised no money but on which commitments were made on the basis that it would raise plenty of money. There was the live cattle ban that destroyed our supply chains without notice and damaged our relationship with Indonesia. There was the carbon tax that former Prime Minister Gillard promised would never be implemented by a government that she led.
To pay for all this profligate spending, Labor kept telling us they would deliver surplus budgets. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition put out that famous newsletter claiming at the time that they were already delivering surpluses, knowing full well there had not been a surplus in this country since Peter Costello's in 2008. As the reality of Labor's tax-and-spend policies became clearer, Labor did what they always do. They reached into the pockets of everyday Australians and trousered the proceeds to try to fill their growing economic black hole. Australians are a hardy lot and they will cop a fair bit, but, when something is so patently unfair, they understandably get their backs up. And so it was when Labor cut the time that bank and superannuation accounts could be dormant from seven to three years and then seized those accounts to alleviate their growing debt-and-deficit disaster. It was something that was very poorly received across Australia, and in my community of Northern Tasmania it resulted in hundreds of complaints.
It is worth recalling that the current Leader of the Opposition was responsible for this decision, a decision that by any measure attacked the savings of Australians, particularly senior Australians. It is a story that is worth recalling. Back in 2012 the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, was the minister for financial services. As I said, Labor was busy hoovering up every spare dollar they could. Then-Treasurer Wayne Swan was using the federal government departments as ATMs, and whenever he and Senator Wong, the finance minister, said, 'We need more money,' another minister would ring the cash register. The reason for that, as I explained, was that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government had run down our economic freedom of action that they inherited from the Howard government. To paraphrase former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Labor had run out of other people's money, and the budget's arteries were choked with an endless list of spending that was unsustainable, unfunded and unprecedented in Australia's history. Debt, as we found out soon after coming to government in late 2013, was on a trajectory to $667 billion—two-thirds of a trillion dollars. We were borrowing $100 million per day to fund legislated and recurrent Labor spending well above the revenue being received from taxpayers and businesses. So, when I say Labor were in panic mode, hoovering up money from government departments, they were doing it on a grand scale.
I was in the Department of Defence at the time, and I can recall $16 billion being taken from Defence in the years after the 2009 white paper, reducing spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest it has been since 1938. In the 15 months before the 2013 election, the Labor-Green government stripped $5.7 billion in aid spending from the forward estimates. They also diverted $750 million in aid spending to onshore processing. They had lost control of our borders by any measure, with 50,000 unexpected arrivals in over 800 boats, and $12 billion in unexpected costs to the taxpayer. That was the result of the Labor Party's disastrous unpicking of Howard government border protection policies that worked. Moving money from the aid program to domestic onshore processing made the Gillard government the third-largest recipient of the Australian aid program.
But it was not only from government departments that the Labor-Green government were trousering every dollar they could get their hands on. Labor turned their attention to the people's hard-earned savings by changing the unclaimed-money rule. People in the gallery and those listening to this broadcast will remember that, up until then, inactive bank accounts could remain dormant for up to seven years before transferring to the Commonwealth. Labor changed that time frame from seven years down to three years. That was the people's money. It did not belong to the Commonwealth, but Labor took it. It is worth noting that these provisions relating to the transfer of unclaimed funds to the government had been around since at least 1911. They existed to provide protections for funds which Australians had forgotten they had in particular accounts, to stop them from being eroded by fees and charges. The intent was to ensure that, no matter what, those funds continued to belong to their rightful owner and could be reclaimed at any time.
Hard-earned money has been seized from everyday Australians. For over 100 years, accounts had to have been inactive for at least seven years before funds could be transferred, and under those rules only $70 million in unclaimed funds was transferred to ASIC in 2011-12. However, the Labor-Greens government's reduction of that period of inactivity to three years resulted in an almost eight-fold increase in a single year. Around $550 million from 156,000 accounts owned by everyday Australian families was seized. It is a travesty that many of these accounts were certainly not unclaimed or forgotten but were transferred to the government regardless in order to improve the budget bottom line—for no other reason than that.
For many Australians, this meant the cancellation of their holidays or a delay in purchasing goods they had been saving for—or, as the member for Mallee, who spoke before me, recalled, the end of a family's livelihood. That was the effect that these measures from those opposite had. The consequences of not being able to access their hard-earned savings when needed most were particularly severe for many Australians in regional communities like mine, in northern Tasmania. People were unexpectedly placed in positions of financial difficulty. In the worst cases, some individuals had to sell their homes. That was and is unacceptable.
Having spent everything and borrowed even more, Labor were taking from the people to feed their insatiable appetite for other people's money. And they have not learned. In the last sitting week of parliament, the member for Grayndler, I recall, was trying to make a point in question time about having funded an infrastructure project, loudly declaring to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was on his feet at the time, 'That was our money.' That is what the member for Grayndler said. Wrong, Member for Grayndler, it is not your money; it is the hardworking taxpayers' money. That attitude from the member for Grayndler and those opposite is at the heart of everything that is wrong with the modern Labor Party.
We see that wrong attitude in the opposition leader's budget reply, which added billions more in spending to Labor's growing black hole, with no detail of how he would fund them. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, ignored Labor's appalling economic and legislative history, repeated past mistakes of deciding to tax and spend even more and showed Australia that he had learned nothing from the accident-prone governments led by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. And, to compound their errors, Labor now stand, without principle, in the way of our efforts to fix the budget, by blocking billions of dollars of savings measures in the Senate, including things they themselves said before the next election that they would save.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, did not cost his promised five per cent tax cut for small business, which we know will cost the budget over $2 billion a year. He says a Labor government will scrap the HECS debts of 100,000 maths, technology, engineering and science students—another $3 billion. He promises a Smart Investment Fund—$500 million more. If Australians ever again have the misfortune of a return to the tax-and-spend days of the Rudd-Gillard years, they know who will come hunting for their bank accounts. We already know that the Labor Party have the hard-earned superannuation accounts of everyday Australians in their sights.
We are rolling back Labor's raid on bank deposits, and I congratulate the Assistant Treasurer, my friend the member for Kooyong, for leading so effectively on this issue. I have told him and the Treasurer repeatedly that this was one of the most raised issues in my electorate of Bass during the 2½ years that I spent as a full-time candidate before the 2013 election. That is why I am so pleased that we are reversing Labor's policy by taking it back from three years to seven years, which is also a recommendation from David Murray's Financial System Inquiry. We did not support this change in opposition, and, as promised, we are making it right in government.
This bill amends the Banking Act and the Life Insurance Act to specify that funds in bank accounts and life insurance policies cannot be deemed to be unclaimed until they have been inactive for at least seven years.
Another important change we are making is to exempt funds held by or on behalf of an individual under the age of 18 from the unclaimed money provisions. Young Australians can once again save with confidence for the long term, knowing their accounts will not be seized after three years by the government. This bill reinforces that the government's instinct is to reward, not punish, those Australians who work hard to contribute to their family's future. Children's accounts will never be transferred to the government, and I know that many people who contacted me when Labor raided their kids' accounts will be very pleased with this bill.
The third change is to introduce new protections for people's privacy, because until now, if you had a dormant account, your name and details could be published.
To further ensure that only funds that are truly forgotten are transferred to ASIC, this bill provides more options for how an account holder can keep their accounts active. If an account holder alerts their financial institution in any way prior to their funds being transferred to ASIC, including by simply checking their bank balance online, that transfer will no longer occur.
We are also ensuring that exemptions are provided to foreign currency accounts, which are primarily used by sophisticated consumers to settle complex business transactions. That is important, particularly in the Asian century, as Australian businesses leverage the benefits of the trifecta of free trade deals negotiated by our hardworking Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb.
This bill delivers on the government's promise to reverse Labor's unfair assault on the savings accounts of everyday Australians. We are restoring to Australian families their control of their own money, their own bank and superannuation accounts. We are restoring the safety net previously in place for a century to protect those who have forgotten accounts. And we are concurrently responding to privacy concerns by better protecting personal information. I know that the measures in this bill will be very warmly welcomed by people in my constituency of northern Tasmania and right around the country. I commend this bill to the House.
I am particularly pleased to rise to support the Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015. The bill makes amendments to the Banking Act 1959 and the Life Insurance Act 1995 to give effect to the unclaimed money measures announced in the 2015-16 budget. It reverses the previous government's changes to Australia's unclaimed moneys provisions. Put quite simply, the government is cleaning up yet another chaotic Labor government mess. That is what it was in very simple terms. It was just a chaotic mess. What did it cause right around Australia? Confusion and distress. Our offices were inundated with calls and emails from people who simply could not believe that the government of the day could actually take their money. Literally, that is what it was.
It was shameful.
As the member for Bass says, it was shameful. Of course, they stripped money off Australians of all ages, including children. The one thing that just blew us away at the time was the Labor government actually attacking the hard-earned savings of little kids who had money in their accounts. There was no incentive for a child to save. What message did this give out in the broader community? It is no wonder that Australians were absolutely horrified and disbelieving. Disbelief was what I heard most. 'I cannot believe that my government—an Australian government—is doing this to me,' and yet it was. It is a measure that we strongly opposed when in opposition.
I am not surprised there are no Labor speakers in here supporting that position. Where are they? Who could come in here in support the previous legislation that took money from children's bank accounts. I am not surprised that they are not here. I do not know how they defended this out in the community at the time. It was an appalling measure. It was a measure that we strongly opposed when in opposition and that we promised to fix when in government. Well here we are and that is exactly what we are doing.
This unmitigated mess was actually created by the current Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of the Opposition actually created this mess. I am seriously concerned, as the member for Bass is, that if Labor comes back into government and the now Leader of the Opposition becomes the Prime Minister there could well be another attack on Australians' savings. Nothing would be sacred and nothing would be safe. Like so many, my office got complaints. It caused problems and distress for the elderly as well as young people and young families.
This bill will extend from three years to seven years the period of inactivity required before funds are actually taken from an authorised deposit-taking institution, an ADI, life insurance provider accounts and life insurance amounts and transferred to the Commonwealth. Currently ADIs are required to assess all accounts to determine if they contain unclaimed moneys by 31 December each year and transfer any that do to the Commonwealth by 31 March the following year. This was Labor's legislation. In late 2012—and I remember it was getting close to Christmas—the previous government reduced the required period of inactivity to just three years. It actually resulted in $550 million from thousands of accounts being transferred to ASIC in 2012-13. There was almost an eightfold increase in a single year.
As I said, we did not support it when in opposition and, as promised, we are fixing it. This really affected rural and regional communities. As I said, we were inundated with complaints from people who simply could not believe this. I look at my original speech on this and see that I called it an underhanded bill. It was an underhanded bill. It allowed the Labor government of the day to get its hands on Australians' money. I made the beginning of my speech on Monday, 26 November—in the run to Christmas—and said that maybe the money in those accounts were holiday savings. I actually noted that as we were heading into Christmas perhaps they were originally set up for some form of Christmas treat or for a holiday—a long-awaited overseas trip perhaps. They may not have contributed funds to or moved funds out of that account. Of course that happens. There was example after example. Accounts can sit inactive for quite some time. As I noted then, it might belong to someone on an overseas posting who may take more than three years to return. At the time it included first home owner accounts and retirement savings accounts. These accounts can say untouched for years, particularly when people are going through great hardship.
At the time the Labor government were chasing a $1.1 billion surplus. They had projected at the time that around $900 million was going to come from this proposal. Their proposed mythical surplus at that time was built around Australians' savings. It was just appalling. It was because Labor was absolutely addicted to waste and spending. To turn around and use Australians' hard-earned funds in savings accounts as a piggy bank was absolutely dreadful. At that time I said it was Robin Hood in reverse because this government had their hands in the pockets of Australians. Labor had completely lost control of their fiscal policy and they were desperate to rip every dollar that they could out of the pockets of Australians. That is exactly what they did with their bill. That was why it was so appalling and why Australians were so appalled by these actions. The fact that they had attempted to hide it in the bill itself frustrated and angered the community. It certainty led them not to trust the Labor government.
More than half the government's surplus of 2012-13—it was a promised surplus but it never eventuated—was to be achieved through the increased revenue from their bill. The sole purpose of the government removing money from Australians' accounts was to try to get a $1.1 billion surplus but that government was absolutely addicted to waste and spending.
As we know, historically there were provisions in place to transfer unclaimed moneys to the government since 1911. They existed to protect Australian's forgotten funds from being eroded by fees and charges. That was until 2012. Accounts had to have been inactive for at least seven years before those funds could be transferred to the Commonwealth. Under those rules, only $70 million in unclaimed funds were transferred to ASIC in 2011-12.
Returning the required period of inactivity before savings and life insurance policies can be transferred to ASIC to seven years will drastically reduce the number of effectively active accounts that are transferred to ASIC every year. It will cost the government $285 million over four years, but this is the funding that would have come out of Australian's pockets.
Shameful.
Yes, shameful. To further ensure that only funds that are truly forgotten are transferred to ASIC, this bill also expands the ways in which account holders can keep their accounts active. It will actually ensure that an account holder can simply alert their financial institution to the fact that they are aware of their account in any way prior to their funds being transferred to ASIC. That can be something as simple as checking a balance online to say 'yes I am aware that my account is there', 'yes this account is active' and, 'no, I am not going to allow the process of the previous Labor government to continue'. Such an action will make sure that the transfer will no longer occur.
An account held by an ADI consists of unclaimed moneys if in the previous three years there have been no transactions in the account other than interest or charges, and they have not satisfied the notification requirements by, for example, checking their account balance online or on the phone or by specifically advising their bank that they would like the account to remain active. It will also stop ADI accounts being transferred to the Commonwealth where the account holder provides notification that the account should be treated as active after the account is assessed as unclaimed moneys at the end of the calendar year but before it is transferred to the Commonwealth—checks and balances.
The bill also exempts ADI accounts created for children—and hallelujah to that. I think that was the one thing that struck most of us with the previous Labor government's approach—the fact that they would actually take money out of children's bank accounts. It is unconscionable. It also exempts those that are held in a foreign currency from the unclaimed moneys provisions, eliminating the unclaimed moneys provisions which currently apply to foreign currency accounts and children's accounts.
Foreign currency accounts are generally used by sophisticated consumers to settle business transactions in foreign currencies. Transferring these accounts to the Commonwealth under the unclaimed moneys provisions requires the account to be converted into Australian dollars, potentially exposing the account holder to exchange rate fluctuations. Given this risk and the fact that these accounts are used by sophisticated consumers who are likely to know of these accounts, it is not appropriate to transfer them to the Commonwealth under the provisions.
Children's accounts are generally established often by grandparents—I am helping my grandkids.
Out of love.
Out of love, exactly. 'And I am going to put a little bit of money in there whenever I can afford it'. Often it is a small amount of money because the person doing it may not have a lot of money themselves. They could be a grandparent pensioner. They could be someone who loves this little person so much and they are quietly putting small amounts into their account. Perhaps it is for the children's education. Perhaps it is for their first car. Whatever it is that the grandparent is contributing to, sometimes that account can be inactive for quite a period of time. The fact that we are going to exempt children's accounts, I think, shows the heart of the government as well and common sense and the fact that it should never have happened in the first place. This might include an inheritance or an endowment that might be kept, for example, until a child's 18th birthday. It might be that the grandparent provides an inheritance in a will but it is there for the child achieve their maturity.
It is not for the Labor Party's deficit.
No it is not for a Labor Party deficit, as the member for Bass so rightly says.
Transferring these accounts to the Commonwealth may result in some children losing out on higher interest rates because accounts transferred to the Commonwealth will only accrue the interest at the rate of the Consumer Price Index.
The bill also promotes and protects the privacy of individuals with accounts that have unclaimed moneys by removing the requirement for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to publish details. I think this is really important. We have heard so much about the problems with this issue and the issue around identity theft by using currently published information. Some, as we know, unscrupulous businesses are also using this information to charge fees as high as 25 per cent to reunite people with their own money, the money that was taken from them by the previous Labor government. Financial institutions will not charge account holders for the services that they will provide.
To protect Australians without unclaimed moneys from exploitation, the bill will remove the requirement for ASIC to publish the Unclaimed Money Gazette and will introduce secrecy provisions to ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts or those acting on their behalf will be able to access their data through freedom of information requests.
I am very pleased to speak on this bill. All of us at the time thought this was a dreadful act by the Labor government of the day. I am particularly pleased that we have done exactly as we committed to do. I strongly support this bill before the House.
I stand here proudly tonight like my colleagues to get rid of this draconian, money-grabbing legislation, legislation that was designed to do nothing more than hit the hip pockets of innocent Australians to prop up a Labor budget which had blown out of control.
I remember that a particular constituent called my office in tears—that is the sort of distress that this bill caused amongst my constituents. She expressed to me that she was fearful that her money was going to be taken by the then Labor government. She felt powerless to act and was not sure what to do. In an absolute frantic state, she felt that her only option was to drive to the nearest bank and request to withdraw all her money and keep it at home, basically under the bed. She did not feel safe. She did not feel that her money was safe. This call really drove it home to me how outrageous the previous government's intentions were with this unclaimed money legislation.
Today, I am as proud a member of the coalition as I can be to speak on the Banking Law Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015, which will reverse the previous Labor government's changes to Australia's unclaimed money provisions. I spoke against the Labor bill back in 2012 and 2013. We are wasting no time in implementing our legislation. From 31 December 2015, our bill will give assurance to all Australians, like my constituents in Paterson who were frightened by the previous government's proposal. I did not receive just one call about this. My electorate has a high over-65 demographic, and when the previous Labor government proposed its bill and then legislated for it, my office was inundated with concerned constituents, mainly grandparents, who wanted to pass on their hard-earned savings to their children and grandchildren.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Goodenough, how many grandparents do you know whose dream to put a few dollars aside for when their grandchildren turn 18 or 21 to give them a bit of a kick-start in life was threatened when they saw Labor's proposal? It was a threat to the money that they had worked hard to put away in the bank for their grandchildren's future.
The provisions in this bill will ensure that funds from Australia's bank accounts and life insurance policies can only be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission after they have been inactive for seven years, as it was before. They will protect the interests of Australians with forgotten funds. It is critically important because funds in bank accounts are a sense of security for many Australians. As a government, we recognise that these funds must continue to belong to their rightful owners and under no circumstances should they be encroached upon through fees and charges for being unused.
These rights have been in law since 1911. These rights were designed to protect the interests of Australians such as those of my constituents in Paterson. My electorate office received a high volume of calls on this subject when it was announced by the previous Labor government. People know that the previous Labor government were doing nothing more than raiding their bank accounts. By way of context, between 1911 and 2012, accounts must have been rendered inactive for at least a seven-year period before the funds could be transferred to the Commonwealth. Comparatively, under the long-held rules, in the 2011-12 financial year only $70 million in unclaimed funds were transferred to ASIC. However, in late 2012, the previous Labor government reduced the required period of activity from seven years to three years. That resulted in $550 million from the thousands upon thousands of accounts being transferred to ASIC in 2012-13. It is abundantly clear that the previous Labor government did nothing more than raid thousands of people's private bank accounts. This was designed to do nothing more than prop up a budget in an attempt to produce a surplus to make the Labor Party look good at the expense of people like my constituents in Paterson.
Let me make this clear to any Labor members who might be listening—though they do not usually listen. This money was not the earnings of the Labor government; this money was the hard-earned dollars of my constituents and people across Australia, whether individuals or corporations, that owned the money in those bank accounts—in their life insurance policies and in their superannuation policies. The money actually belonged to someone. Many of these accounts were certainly not unclaimed or forgotten. Many people, like my constituents, were content to simply know that the money was in an account and they did not feel the need to add or subtract from the account. It was their nest egg. Yet, the previous government's excuse was that this money did not belong to someone; therefore, it belonged to the government and therefore the government could use it to prop up its ineptitude at managing the budget—as we saw so often. It was an incredulous proposition.
The previous Labor government transferred this money to ASIC after three years of inactivity simply to improve their budget bottom line. These were the actions of a desperate and dysfunctional Labor government. The consequences of the previous Labor government's changes to the rules were detrimental to many Australians. It caused untold stress on many seniors in the community. For some people, the money was a safety net, a nest egg or a backup, and suddenly it was gone. For some, the consequence of not being able to access their hard-earned savings sitting in a bank account was severe, with some individuals actually having to sell their homes. This is totally unacceptable. It showed a blatant disregard of the many Australians who had funds in long-term savings accounts which they did not touch.
In opposition, we did not support this bill and we promised that we would make it right in government. That is what we are doing. We are making this right. Earlier this year in the 2015-16 budget, we committed to reforming the unclaimed money provisions. In returning the required period of inactivity to seven years, as it was between 1911 and 2012, we will drastically reduce the number of inactive accounts that will be transferred to ASIC each year.
It is sobering to think about how this affects the people who think ahead—those that plan, those that have put their hard-earned money aside before they retire—for a long-term purpose. My electorate has one of the oldest populations in our nation, and my elderly constituents are always at the forefront of my mind.
Some elderly constituents might be living on their own because, sadly, their partner is now deceased. These people might be putting aside their money for their own funeral. Some people make the choice not to pre-purchase their funerals but to have their financial affairs in order—money in the bank to cover themselves when the time comes—so as not to burden their family. These people might live beyond the three-year period that the previous Labor government opted for. How tragic and how distressing it would be for family members to discover this money has been taken because it was in an 'inactive' account. They might not even know where the money has been put aside.
Even interest payments to an account would not deem it 'active'. It would still be rendered 'inactive'. I reflect on a family like this who has been left behind after someone has passed away. How difficult would it be for the family to find and access this money that was wrongly taken by a Labor government? What processes, what paper work did they have to go through to find and identify this account and then recover the money to pay for the funeral? It is instances such as this that have not been thought through by the previous Labor government.
The government is acting out of national interest in these changes; it is not acting on behalf of the Treasury. This change will cost the government. It will cost us $285 million over four years. However, it will save my community, Australia's community, over $36 million a year through reduced red-tape costs, because there will be fewer accounts that will need to be transferred from and returned back to account holders.
One aspect of this bill that I am particularly reconciled towards is the exemption of children's accounts and foreign currency accounts from the unclaimed money provisions. As a government we recognise that many Australians set aside money for their children's future or for their grandchildren's future. They trust that this money will continue to grow in value and be readily available when their children need it. As I said, it is quite common for grandparents to put a few dollars away here and there. When they retire they might put money aside for when their grandchildren hit 18 or 21, to give them a bit of a kick-start in life.
We as a government want to reward people; we do not want to punish hardworking people—people who worked extremely hard to put their hard-earned dollars away for their family's future. They did that by saving, by going without and by making sure that money was there. We want to make sure that we are not transferring children's accounts to the government's accounts. We aim to see this through for the benefit of the person that the money was bestowed upon and for the person that was putting the money aside.
I also support the fact that this bill will ensure that only funds that are truly forgotten are transferred to ASIC. This bill expands the way in which account holders can keep their accounts active. The bill will ensure that an account holder with savings alerts their financial institution to the fact that they are aware of their account prior to their funds being transferred to ASIC. Simply checking a balance online will mean that the transfer will no longer occur. People can go online, check the balance of that account and see what interest they have earned, and that will make the account active. It keeps the government's fingers off of constituents' hard-earned dollars.
The changes made by the previous government left many Australians financially distressed. But the changes we are making also highlight deficiencies in the way personal information is protected on behalf of account holders. ASIC is currently required to publish an 'unclaimed money gazette' online. This encompasses detailed personal information, including a person's name, their last known address and the amount of money they have unclaimed. This is incredibly dangerous. I can think of many ways—including identity theft—that this information, when made public in this way, could adversely impact people.
The public dissemination of this personal information has left vulnerable people in an even worse position. Unscrupulous businesses have used this information to charge fees as high as 25 per cent—to reunite people with their own money that the government took off them. This is a service the government and financial institutions do not charge account holders for. In order to protect those Australians with unclaimed money from being exploited by unethical businesses preying on this vulnerability—and to protect them from the dangers of identity theft—this bill removes the requirement for ASIC to publish the unclaimed money gazette, and will introduce secrecy provisions to ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts or those acting on their behalf will be able to access their data through freedom of information requests.
This bill delivers on the government's promise to reform the unclaimed money provisions, and it contributes to the government's promise to support Australian business by reducing red tape $1 billion each and every year. This bill will leave more Australians in control of their own finances. This bill will better protect the personal information of thousands of Australians. It will also leave a safety net in place to protect those who have truly forgotten money in bank accounts. It will protect their money from being eroded by fees and charges and it will protect it from being stolen by the former Labor government.
I am proud that the coalition has introduced this bill to reverse the previous government's changes to Australia's unclaimed money provisions. As of 31 December 2015, as a result of this bill, Australia's bank accounts and life insurance policies can only be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission after they have been inactive for at least seven years.
Australia has had provisions to effect the transfer of unclaimed funds to the government since at least 1911. These provisions ensure that the forgotten funds are not eroded by fees and charges. But, no matter what, these funds continue to belong to their rightful owners and can be reclaimed at any time, through contact with either ASIC or the financial institution.
No fee is charged for this service. For over a century—from 1911 through to 2012—only those accounts that were inactive for at least seven years were transferred to the Commonwealth. In 2011-12 this resulted in $70 million in unclaimed funds being transferred to ASIC. The previous government acted to change this arrangement in late 2012 by more than halving the period of required activity from seven to three years. As a result, the amount of unclaimed money from thousands of accounts being transferred to ASIC in 2012-13 increased to an extraordinary $550 million—an almost eightfold increase in a single year.
As I have raised in this House in the past, in 2013 I was personally contacted by a very concerned parent whose son had realised that he no longer had any money in his savings account. In this instance the son had been working in London for four years and had put some money aside as part of his savings for his return to Australia in late 2013. He had checked his account only to find that all of the money had gone. After making some inquiries he realised this was a result of the previous government's changes to the unclaimed moneys bill, and he set about trying to recover the money. The process for recovering the money was complex. The parent, who had power of attorney for his young adult child, had to provide passport information and a drivers licence. He had to fill in a number of forms and had to not only prove his power of attorney but also try to get evidence of the fact that the power of attorney had not been revoked. In fact, it was so difficult for this very educated man and his son to get the money back that his son decided he was not going to bother to try to recover these funds until he had physically returned to Australia. This is just one of many examples that occurred right across the country.
The former government's changes resulted in large costs, inconvenience and, in some cases, significant stress for those Australians who had to go through the time-consuming process of reclaiming their own money. In some cases this took as long as six months. The changes made by the former government go to the fundamental differences between the ethical underpinnings of the Australian Labor Party and those of the Liberal and National parties.
Let me remind my colleagues in the ALP and the Greens that moneys held in Australian bank accounts are not government savings on which to be banked when recurrent spending is on the up nor are they government insurance for the rainy day of increasing debt and worsening economic conditions. In short, they are not government moneys; they are private moneys. They are the savings of Australians—from the smallest balance to sums that are quite substantial. They are savings earned over months and years and on which tax has already been paid. The previous government's sole intention in changing the banking provisions was to shore up its own financial position, with unclaimed moneys held by ASIC serving to reduce the Commonwealth's net debt position.
Of course, it was a fiction. If the former government had been genuinely interested in controlling debt it would have done so more carefully. It would have looked at its own activity, thoughtfully gauged the merit of its own programs and contained spending wherever possible. However, it did not do this. Instead the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government sent $900 cheques, sometimes to people who were deceased. It embarked on the gross waste and the tragedy of the home insulation scheme and it locked continued increased spending in a range of sectors on the false assumption that more money automatically translates to better outcomes, which, of course, we know is not the case.
From a position of money in the bank and no net debt—which was the position of the former coalition government—the Labor Party, with their partners, the Greens, took us on a spending path that was leading us to net debt levels of 122 per cent of GDP. Spain currently has around 60 per cent and Greece has net debt of over 150 per cent of GDP. Rather than face the reality of their own poor budgetary performance, they instead turned to the budgets of ordinary Australians—men and women and, to their shame, even children. Those Australians were unrepresented by a peak group, diverse in nature and, as a result, were the least likely to organise and make a fuss. They were everyday Australians going about their lives and with savings in the bank. In total, 156,000 accounts were transferred to ASIC. Many of these accounts were certainly not unclaimed nor forgotten, but were transferred to the government regardless in order to improve the budget bottom line—a budget bottom line that they had created. As an opposition we opposed this change and now, as promised, in government we have made it right.
Returning the required period of inactivity before savings and life insurance policies can be transferred to ASIC to seven years will drastically reduce the number of effectively active accounts that are transferred to ASIC each year. This change will cost the government budget $285 million over four years; however, it is money the previous government should never have banked. In addition, there will be a reduction of red tape costs to the community in the order of $36 million each year as fewer accounts must be transferred from and returned to account holders.
This bill also expands the ways in which account holders can keep their accounts active, thus ensuring that only funds that are truly forgotten are transferred to ASIC. This bill will ensure that if an account holder alerts their financial institution to the fact that they are aware of their account in any way prior to their funds being transferred to ASIC, including simply checking a balance online, then that transfer will not occur. This bill will also entirely exempt children's accounts and foreign currency accounts from the unclaimed moneys provisions. In many instances children's accounts are established by families in order to set aside money for the future. In recognition of this fact and to reward, not punish, those Australians who are working hard to provide for their family's future, children's accounts will never be transferred to the government. As a new parent who is about to establish an account for my newborn child, this is something that gives me great comfort.
Meanwhile, foreign currency accounts are generally used by sophisticated consumers to settle complex business transactions. Transferring these accounts to the government not only potentially disrupts these processes but also exposes the account holder to the risk of a loss, as their funds must be converted to Australian dollars at the prevailing exchange rate before they can be transferred to ASIC. This government is committed to reducing red tape for Australian businesses, and as such these types of products will also be exempted entirely from the unclaimed moneys provisions.
To add insult to injury, the unprecedented growth in the value of money transferred to ASIC under the previous government served to highlight the deficiencies in the way that the account holder's personal information is protected. Currently ASIC is required to publish an unclaimed moneys gazette online which details the account holder's name and last known address and the amount of money they have unclaimed. The Information Commissioner has subsequently raised concerns about the potential for identity theft using currently published information. It is also important to raise awareness that, while some businesses have also been using this information to charge fees to reunite people with their own money, the government and financial institutions do not charge account holders for this service. To protect Australians who have unclaimed moneys from exploitation, this bill will remove the requirement for ASIC to publish the unclaimed moneys gazette and will introduce secrecy provisions to ensure that only individuals with unclaimed accounts or those acting on their behalf will be able to access their data through freedom of information requests.
This bill delivers on the government's promise to reform the unclaimed moneys provisions. It will leave more Australians in rightful control of their own finances, better protect their personal information, and leave a safety net in place to protect those with truly forgotten amounts from having their value eroded by fees and charges. In doing so, it redresses the actions of the former ALP government and restores each person's right to stewardship of their own savings. I commend this bill to the House.
The opportunity to speak briefly on this bill is great news for the people of Braddon. The Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015 will put right a huge wrong that was done under the stewardship of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan. This amendment bill tonight will bring back into play a law within the statutes that was 101 years of age when the previous Labor government decided that it was no longer necessary that inactive accounts should stay for seven years and then action would be taken. They had a desperate need for funds and decided to transfer—to put it kindly—moneys that were owned by Australians into the hands of the government.
Today we will correct that wrong. For 156,000 Australians through that period, with accounts in their banks totalling over half a billion dollars—that is $500-plus million dollars—we tonight will right that wrong and return to the statutes a bill that will ensure that people's funds are back to being inactive for seven years, but with some improvements even still. Children's accounts—those accounts that were probably amongst the most vulnerable, together with those of older Australian citizens—will now be exempt from the status of being inactive and from going across to the government coffers. This is a great addition to this law. Not only that, but there will now be provisions that will mean that, even if there have been no withdrawals or deposits, if people check their accounts online or have made an inquiry at an ATM or have called their bank over the phone or have dropped into the bank to check their balance through a teller—if in fact you can find any of those these days—then that will now signal—technologically, I suppose—that this account is not inactive. In fact, it has someone very interested in the contents of that account. To think for one moment that a national government would for one moment even contemplate taking funds from people and putting them into the government coffers is extraordinary. To actually act on that is even more extraordinary. So today we will right that wrong through this bill, and it is a welcome initiative.
I know many, many of the people of Braddon were impacted by this. As the incoming member, I learned of many people who went to their bank, saw that the closet was empty and wondered what on earth had happened. I say to those people, and to others that may be wondering whether or not in fact their money is still in the bank, that they can go online at www.moneysmart.gov.au to check up to see if what may have been an inactive account is still there or has been transferred. These people are some of our aged people who put an account aside for grandchildren. They may have put money aside for their own funeral to alleviate any financial stress on their family at the time of their passing. And what did we find? We found a government so desperate to try to make the books look better that they stooped to the lows of taking funds from ordinary Australians.
I thought the contribution in this debate by the member for Hughes was exceptional. He exposed to the parliament the six biggest bank heists in history, and this one ranked at No. 2. What a disgrace it was. It is tremendous that tonight the Abbott coalition government is rectifying this wrong, as we said we would do in the lead-up to the election. I encourage people in the electorate of Braddon to check that website, www.moneysmart.gov.au, to ensure that there are not funds put aside in government coffers that in fact belong to them. I thank the House.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015 delivers on the government's promise to reform the unclaimed moneys provisions and helps to deliver on the government's promise to support Australian business by reducing red tape by $1 billion each and every year.
When the previous Labor government, in a desperate money grab, reduced the required period of inactivity before funds must be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to three years, the value of unclaimed money transferred to ASIC in a single year grew more than eightfold. Unfortunately, however, much of this money was not forgotten, and the previous government's changes left many Australian families in a position of financial distress. This was an unacceptable outcome. In order to again ensure that Australians' active bank accounts and life insurance policies remain in their control, this bill returns the required period of inactivity before they can be transferred to ASIC to seven years. It also makes changes to the notification requirements to ensure that, even after seven years of inactivity, if an account holder lets their financial institution know that they are aware of those funds in any way, prior to their transfer to ASIC, such as by checking the balance online, they will remain in control of the account holder.
In recognition of how Australians actually use different financial products, this bill will also exempt children's accounts and foreign currency accounts from the unclaimed moneys provisions entirely. For example, many Australians set money aside for their children's future and trust that this money will continue to grow in value and be available for their children when they are ready. In recognition of this fact, as a result of this bill, funds from children's accounts will not be transferred to ASIC. Foreign currency accounts, meanwhile, are primarily used by sophisticated consumers to settle complex transactions. However, transferring foreign currency accounts to ASIC not only disrupts these processes; it also exposes the account holder to a loss, as their funds must be converted to Australian dollars at the prevailing exchange rate before they can be transferred to ASIC. In line with the government's commitment to protect Australian businesses from excessive red tape, these types of products will also be exempt from transfer to ASIC.
Finally, this bill will introduce new limits on access to the personal details of those Australians with unclaimed accounts. To protect account holders from exploitation by some unscrupulous money-finding companies, or even identity theft, this bill will remove the requirement for ASIC to publish an unclaimed moneys gazette and introduces secrecy provisions to restrict freedom-of-information requests generally to an individual's own details. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am getting very sentimental about what red-tape repeal day used to be. Back in the old days, when we had the first red-tape repeal day, it was introduced here by the Prime Minister. The entire day was dedicated to the bills. It was a festival—a bonfire of bits of paper and regulations that were going to be destroyed. Now look what it has come to. It used to be introduced by the Prime Minister; now it gets introduced by the parliamentary secretary. And instead of it being the previous parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, who used this issue to find his way all the way to the front row of the government benches, it is now the member for Pearce who gets to introduce it, on 18 March, and nearly six months later we decide it is time to have the second speech on red-tape repeal day. The problem has been that, amongst these bills, there is actually not much red tape being repealed. There is lots of fanfare, there is lots of excitement, but it is sort of like that moment at the end of The Sound of Music where they announce the Von Trapp Family Singers and no-one walks in. They announce it two or three more times, and then they go off in a chase scene trying to find them.
Each time the fanfare is that there is all this regulation that they will be getting rid of for small business—sometimes the red tape is going to a bonfire; sometimes it is going to go through a shredder. And what do we end up with? Bills that are already obsolete being removed; punctuation changes going through; committees being abolished that already had no members; programs being removed that already had no funds. That is what is left. That is why red-tape repeal day has gone from being something that the government would get front-page stories on—there would be a big build-up and it would be part of their economic narrative—to being like so many of their policies, just a fizzer, and it is just a situation where they are committed to go through the motions, so we go through the motions of it, but no-one's heart is in it anymore.
Nearly six months have gone by since the bills were initially introduced. We are now debating them. One of the previous bills, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, still has not passed the parliament. It is still bouncing back and forth between the houses. No-one has really noticed, because none of it really mattered, but some of that legislation that had all the fanfare back then is still bouncing back and forth between the houses. No-one talks about it being a double dissolution trigger because nothing rests on it anyway.
Today we have got three of them: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015, and the Statute Law Bill (No.2) 2015. They largely contain the removal of spent and redundant pieces of legislation, the repeal of redundant provisions within acts and fixes to punctuation and spelling and modernising of language in legislation. All of it is reasonable stuff to do, but it is a bit weird to get excited about it. It is a bit weird to think that this is an answer for small business, that this is something that shows this is a government committed to abolishing red tape.
In the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015, we see a continuation of a series of bills where the parliament has witnessed the war on punctuation—removing hyphens, changing 'facsimile' to 'fax', and other spelling, grammar and cross-referencing matters that could not wait a day longer. To date, the government has claimed red-tape savings across the three statute law revision bills of $870,000 as part of the red-tape repeal days. On current count, the achievement of these bills has been to remove 45 hyphens, two commas and one inverted comma and to change two full stops to semicolons, one semicolon to a full stop and to insert one full stop, one colon, one hyphen and one comma.
They are meant to be some of the key things in the removal of red tape by this government. I have to say with the removal of the 45 hyphens that at least it is big number, and I do think there was something happening there with the inverted comma. But, really, the explanatory memorandum on this one, the Statute Law Revision Bill No. 2, says it all:
None of the corrections makes any change to the substance of the law.
It is there in black and white in the explanatory memorandum for the bill itself. That is followed by the statement:
This Bill will have no financial impact.
So the explanatory memorandum says:
None of the corrections makes any change to the substance of the law.
This Bill will have no financial impact.
Remember the excitement when this first started. Remember the Prime Minister standing there telling us how committed this government was to removing red tape—and this is what we get. Six months later they bring it back on and the parliamentary secretary responsible is nowhere to be seen and the minister who used to be in charge of this is seen fleeing from the chamber the moment this issue comes on.
The bill also includes correction of cross-referencing and fixing grammar, such as changing 'an' to 'a' in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994; changing 'object' to 'objects' in the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989; removing a stray inverted comma in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act; changing 'if' to 'of' in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004; modernising language—here is a good one—and replacing terms like 'reference base' with 'index reference period' in 31 different acts in relation to indexation provisions; the repeal of redundant provisions in two pieces of legislation that have ceased to have effect anyway; and repealing six acts that have past their date of effect. So the acts already said that they would expire on a particular date and that date has gone. So we are repealing them now even though they already do not matter.
How on earth is this relevant to an anti-red tape agenda? As a cleaning-up exercise, maybe—but who actually cares? Making sure that spelling, grammar and cross-referencing in legislation is all up to date is a necessary task, but it is a routine job. It is nothing to get excited about. A noteworthy action in this bill is that there is the removal of gender specific language in the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act and the Public Works Committee Act. They have replaced 'chairman of committee' with 'chair of committees.' There is $100,000 in deregulatory savings attached to this bill. I am not entirely sure how to quantify the value of a comma, but that is the total that we are told.
Then we get to the next one, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015. This bill repeals 870 acts from 1980 to 1989. So you might think, 'That's 870 acts gone; that is a whole lot of regulation gone.' It is the third bill in a series of bills that have dealt with things like relating to state navies and the registration of mules and bullocks for military purposes. The explanatory memorandum to this bill states again:
In all cases, the repeal of the Acts will not substantially alter existing arrangements or make any change to the substance of the law.
There are repeals of many amending acts. These are ones where the amending act goes through, the amendments have occurred and the amending act automatically ceases to have effect—but we have come back to repeal it anyway. There are also repeals of amending acts where the principal act itself was repealed some years ago. So they have gone back and said, 'Oh, well, just for the hell of it, even though there is no principal act and there hasn't been for years, let's repeal all the amending acts so that we can claim that we have repealed more legislation,' even though none of it for years has made a difference to anyone at all.
Examples of this include the Delivered Meals Subsidy Amendment Act 1980, which made amendments to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970. This is, I presume, Gordon government legislation which was then amended by the Fraser government. The amendment was in relation to making changes to the subsidy that could be paid to an approved organisation providing meal services. The main act was repealed in 2009. So this has no effect at all, but it is there added to the total. If you wanted to say, 'Repealing the main act might have made a difference,' yes, maybe that is true, but that happened in 2009 under Labor. The only part of that that made any difference was what was repealed in 2009. We are now repealing amendments to an act that has already gone.
The National Debt Sinking Fund Amendment Act 1989 amended the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966. The main act was repealed by another act in 1994. So it was repealed in the Keating government and ceased to have effect in 1995—so, again, another completely inconsequential amendment. If getting rid of the principal acts mattered, they could run that argument, but both of them happened under Labor. The big achievement of the Abbott government on red tape repeal day is that they are obliterating legislation that already does not matter and has not mattered for more than a decade. For some, there have been four of five changes of government in the interim, during which time no-one on earth has been troubled by these acts. Few people on the planet have known they existed. Yet we are meant to get excited with the fanfare of red tape repeal day, that somewhere in this nation there will be a small business operator looking back over their ledger and saying, 'Gee, I'm really glad the National Debt Sinking Fund Amendment Act 1989 is one that I don't have to check anymore'—because that was what must have been causing trouble for red tape and paperwork in that small business. They are claiming $600,000 in deregulatory savings with this one.
What we are dealing with today, rather than hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in deregulatory savings, is less than two per cent of the total deregulatory savings that the government would want to claim. Serious deregulation can be done. As agriculture minister I was responsible for the wheat industry—and the Libs supported me; the Nats did not—where you were actually getting rid of regulation in a real way.
Order!
I am having fun, Mr Speaker.
Order!
It is red tape repeal day; it is meant to be important.
Debate interrupted.
Rarely a week passes in my electorate office where complaints are not received about inadequate or intermittent internet, mobile phone or digital television reception. These are longstanding issues, and I am determined to work to find a solution for affected residents. The government and the Minister for Communications should work with me in this cause—though it is unfortunate that in my experience so far the people of Charlton are not getting what they deserve from this government.
Last year I lodged a petition on behalf of 155 residents of the Morisset peninsula who were experiencing serious interference with television reception. A month later I wrote to the Minister for Communications again, bringing to his attention the serious deficiency with mobile phone reception in the area. I drew his attention to the Martinsville area in particular, which in my opinion presents a public safety risk, given the isolation of the area and its proximity to the national park and state forest, which are popular with four-wheel drive enthusiasts, motorcyclists and bushwalkers. It is also a bushfire-prone area.
On numerous occasions, I have made representations to the minister about the lack of decent internet infrastructure in parts of the electorate. A proliferation of pair gains and premises that are too far from an exchange have seen a large number of households in my area unable to connect to adequate or affordable broadband.
It is this situation that prompted me to launch a digital communications survey to gain further feedback on the state of these services. I received 317 responses which is, of course, just a small snapshot. Hearing these stories has been overwhelming. So many people have told me they are frustrated and angry; and many have exhausted all their options, received conflicting advice, or have been presented with a costly solution that is not possible for them to undertake.
I have heard from families who spend hundreds a month so their children can have internet access to study. I have heard from a small business owner who spends more than $1,000 a month on 4G, yet still experiences interruptions. I have heard from seniors who feel isolated without television reception and who cannot afford to subscribe to pay TV.
These services are not a luxury; they are a necessary part of the way we live and work. In regional areas, this is even more pronounced. I have asked the communications minister for very specific support to alleviate these problems. I have asked for digital television reception issues to be referred to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for field testing and for the matter to be raised with the regional broadcasters' authority, RBA Holdings. This has not been done.
I asked for upgrades to the mobile telephone network in south-western Lake Macquarie through the Mobile Black Spot Program; yet not a single dollar was invested in my area through the first round of this program. The latest NBN rollout figures show more than 100,000 homes in the Hunter and Central Coast will be left waiting longer than they were promised for a connection to the NBN. Of course I am disappointed by the Liberals' changes to the National Broadband Network, because this will result in an inferior outcome; however, any infrastructure program that delivers higher internet speeds to homes and businesses in my region is welcome, and so far the government has failed in that regard also.
The minister's response to my survey was appalling. Save for a longwinded letter of little substance, he has shown absolutely no interest in working with me to address the issues and has failed to refer the matters to his department for further review. To make matters worse, he was in the Hunter just a couple of weeks ago, announcing around half a million dollars in federal funding to upgrade the television transmitter in the Paterson electorate. He quite literally drove up the M1 motorway, passing many of the towns I have pleaded with him to consider supporting, so that he and the member for Paterson could hold a press conference.
I would hope and expect that the communications minister would do the same for the people of the Charlton electorate. I would also expect that he support my calls—to regional broadcasters, to telecommunications companies and to the government—to start working together to find a solution to these problems. So far, we have been ignored. It is not good enough. It reeks of political opportunism, and the people I represent deserve better than that.
In this House we often have conflicts over politics—over delivery of programs—but access to basic services like free-to-air television in towns less than an hour and a half from Sydney is a basic right in a developed nation. It is a right that should not be politicised. I would be very happy for the minister to come up and announce investment with me being nowhere near—in fact I will promise to be out of the electorate that day, if it means he can come up and grab the glory of delivering these improved services to my region. Too many constituents of Charlton suffer from slow or non-existent internet, no TV reception and no mobile phone reception. In the 21st century, that is unacceptable.
I wish to speak about social welfare payments and the very large role that they play in the federal budget. Our social welfare system matters a great deal, because it is the means by which we provide for people who need government support. It goes without saying that we all want to help people in need. It is one of the marks of a civilised society. However, our moral obligation extends to not only those who need government support but also those who pay for it.
In my electorate of Banks, people are supportive of the social safety net. But they want it to be a safety net, not a way of life. It is important to look at the numbers to understand the significance of this issue to the federal budget. In 2014-15, the budget forecasts final federal spending is $420 billion but, of that $420 billion, about $55 billion is the revenue that the federal government merely collects on behalf of the states through GST and passes through automatically to them. It is not in my view a federal spending, given that it is simply a pass through to the states. Of that $365 billion that remains, $149 billion is social security and welfare—that is about 41 per cent of all federal spending.
Since 2004-05, annual spending on social security and welfare has increased from $83 billion to $149 billion—an increase of 80 per cent in a decade. To put it in context, this spending is about five times what we spend on education and about six times what we spend on defence. It is about 35 times what we spend on immigration, 150 times what we spend on the ABC and close to 800 times what we spend on tourism. It is an extremely large amount.
There has been a lot of discussion in recent times about compliance in the tax system and ensuring companies do not unlawfully evade tax, and that is entirely appropriate. The tax integrity measures that we announced in the budget will go a long way towards addressing that problem. But integrity measures must apply to the welfare system too, representing as it does 41 per cent of effectively all federal spending. It is hard to argue with the proposition that welfare payments should only go to people who are actually entitled to claim them. Whatever the programs, whatever the rules, they have to be followed. If even one per cent of current welfare spending is obtained inappropriately, that would equate to about $1.5 billion per year or about $6 billion over the forward estimates. That saving would dwarf the financial impact of the vast majority of other measures that are discussed here in Canberra.
Compliance work is unglamorous. It will never get the amount of attention of the Canberra story of the day; it is hard to write an amusing tweet about it, after all. But good compliance work in welfare is likely to have a much bigger budget impact than the scores of shallow controversies that get raised in this place by those opposite each year. Under the leadership of the social services minister, improved compliance measures in the disability support pension are already starting to work. Assessing claims consistently through doctors contracted by the government has had a substantial impact in managing the growth of this payment. In 2014-15 there were 40,000 people granted the DSP, compared to over 90,000 in Labor's peak year of 2009-10. These numbers suggest that the potential benefits of improved compliance are very significant. Seventeen billion dollars is spent annually on the DSP. This is one of the largest programs in the entire federal government. We all want a strong program to help the disabled, but we can't have that program being compromised by people who are not in fact entitled to it.
In the debate about tax reform, those opposite are quick to leap to the conclusion that Australians should be compulsorily charged more tax—more tax on super, more tax on real estate, more tax on electricity, more tax on a whole range of things—but how can we demand that people pay more tax before we have done everything we reasonably can to limit what government spends? Even small improvements in welfare compliance can have a very substantial impact on the budget, and it is critical that government focuses on this area as it is under the social services minister. By managing social welfare compliance effectively, we can ensure that the system is always there for those who need it. The people of my electorate of Banks expect nothing less.
On this day two years ago the electors of Lalor put their trust in me to become the member for Lalor—a humbling experience. Two years later, being the member for Lalor is inspiring. The people I meet, their stories, their resilience, their determination and their aspirations drive me every day. I am driven by what I see on the ground, by the community organisations working tirelessly to assist the underprivileged, by the sport and leisure associations and organisations and the volunteers who work in those to keep them going, by the young families getting their children involved in school and in sport, by our school communities, by their leaders, teachers and parents. I am inspired by our workers, who get up early every day and go to work to ensure their families are housed, clothed and inspired again. I am inspired by our business owners and particularly by those who care about their customers and their workers. In short: I am inspired by the community spirit. I am inspired by the way our community meets its challenges.
On election night two years ago I committed to being a strong voice for my local community—a community that is meeting enormous challenges of high growth, changing cultural demographics and a changing world. They are doing this through collaborating. They are doing this by problem-solving and building communities from the ground up in new housing estates all over the City of Wyndham.
On election night I made a commitment to be that strong voice and tonight I reaffirm that commitment. I reaffirm that I am committed to making sure that the people I represent are heard in this place. So tonight I want to talk about what they need, and what the people of Lalor need are jobs. They need to ensure that industries of the future are coming into their community. They live in a large city with travel times to the CBD of Melbourne that can be up to an hour and a half each way. They live with limited public transport—buses that can take 40 minutes to get them to a train station. They need jobs of the future. They need commitment from the federal government to ensure that the cities that they live in—that the City of Wyndham—is connected to the CBD through public transport.
They need access to the NBN for business, from small, home based microbusinesses to tradies to our large warehouses and manufacturing industries. They need quality education. It is critical in my community that the thousands of young people—80 babies born a week—have quality early childhood education services and quality schools with quality teachers. It is important that the supports are put in place to ensure that our kids get the best start in life. They need access to health services. They need quality services for the aged. As I have said, they need infrastructure. A high-growth community needs enormous infrastructure.
They need good support from local government, state government and federal government. And so many of these needs are not being met in my electorate under this government. It is my job as the representative, as the member for Lalor, to stand here time and time again until their voices are heard. This government has cut funding to education. I have seen the positive evidence of the impact that additional resources had on our local schools under the previous Labor government. The lift was remarkable, but it is now under threat as the resources are not being guaranteed. There are cuts to preventative health programs. We have had attacks on Medicare. We have had replacement of Medicare Locals with a larger organisation that is expected now to do the same work across more municipalities with less money. We have had no new NBN areas. We have had unemployment and youth unemployment rising in the electorate. We have had local car and shipbuilding industries closing and under threat. My community needs this government to take its needs seriously, and I call on it to do so.
Tonight I too mark the anniversary of the occasion two years ago when the coalition government was elected. I have to say, after sitting in here for two terms in opposition under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, it has indeed been a wonderful change to be part of a government that cares about regional Australia. And it is very pleasing to be part of a government that has a clear plan, a plan to build a prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia.
I have been working very hard over the electorate of Parkes, which is a third of New South Wales, to do my bit in implementing this plan. There are a few examples that I would like to mention that have come to fruition in the last couple of years. As part of the government's $50 billion infrastructure program to improve road and rail links, reduce travel times and support economic growth and safety on our roads, we have seen extra money go into programs like Roads to Recovery, where $1.105 billion has been made available to councils right across Australia for road upgrades. And the 17 councils in the Parkes electorate are very pleased to have this.
This morning the shadow minister for infrastructure was saying that he has seen nothing done. It is probably because he has not looked. I am very proud to say that a couple of weeks ago we opened the Moree bypass stage 2. After being unfunded by the previous government for six years, and after money was squandered by the previous Labor government in New South Wales, the Moree bypass was opened 12 months early and under budget—a great example of good governance at the federal, state and local levels. That bypass will take 1,700 vehicles out of the main street of Moree every day. We have also seen the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which has put $26 million into the Parkes electorate to help with safety for heavy vehicles. Perhaps the program closest to my heart is the Inland Rail program. With Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss appointing John Anderson to head up the implementation committee, we are very close to seeing the final implementation report of that committee and a clear way forward now for that wonderful piece of nation-building infrastructure to come to fruition. The $300 million that has gone towards that process has already seen some of the preliminary environmental and scoping work happening on that Inland Rail. I am very excited about the possibility of seeing this project come to fruition very soon.
Last week Minister Truss was in Dubbo for the launch of the $6½ million dollar upgrade to the Dubbo regional saleyards facilities under the National Stronger Regions Fund, with $3.29 million of that funded by the federal government. Those facilities will help cement and even grow Dubbo's position as the leading sale centre for both sheep and cattle in eastern Australia.
We have also seen a large amount of funds in my electorate going to the Bridges Renewal Program and the Black Spot Program to fix up dangerous black spots around the roads in my electorate. We have also seen support for drought communities through funding for farm families and, recently, the Drought Communities Program for Brewarrina and Walgett. There is the agriculture white paper and the $4 billion that is connected to that, which has brought big improvements to water infrastructure and farm management deposits for investment. Along with that, there are livestock markets that have been opened up the under the free trade agreements.
I was born in Logan City. I grew up there. I started a family there. I live there. I love the place. I am proud I get to represent it here in the people's house of the Australian parliament. For as long as I can remember, there has been something that has really got on my nerves about the way that our local suburbs and neighbourhoods are described and depicted. It is not the identification of our challenges that bothers me, because that is important. The problem is that too often our stories are told by those who do not understand our community or who do not take the time to learn about it. I am tired of people who do not understand us telling our stories for us. The peak of that frustration came a few months ago when there were rumours of plans to film a Struggle Street-style program in our area. I do not blame SBS—I am a huge supporter of theirs. In fact, they quickly clarified that no plans were afoot. But the whole experience crystallised for me this conviction—that in Logan City we must tell our own stories our own way.
I know from all my years in Logan that the soundtrack of our community is hip-hop music. It was for me, and it still is now. Hip-hop stories are sometimes positive, sometimes not, but they are real and important, with a genuine local feel that resonates in our suburbs, especially among our young people.
That is the idea behind the Logan City Hip Hop Collective, which was launched in Logan two weeks ago. A few months before then, I sat down with Jo Pratt, the CEO of the multicultural arts organisation called BEMAC, and I pitched the idea to her. Without hesitation, her response was, 'Let's do it.' She set her incredible music industry experience and contacts to work to put the collective together and involved BEMAC's partner, Access, which helped with the funding and the promotion as well. Jo and her team identified the artists, brought them together and organised all the logistics to put the show on, so I am incredibly thankful for and appreciative of her work and her colleagues' work.
On the Monday before the event, I spent time with a guy called MC Triks and the other artists at his recording studio in Slacks Creek. MC Triks is a natural leader for the group and for young people in our area. On the night of the event, he performed along with Zephania, Aygee Melody, African Murri, the Access Dance Crew, Lill'P, Provokal, ICEY Clique, Exit Strategy, Nuggy Gee, Osiris and Eazy Company. All of them put on an incredible show, including the ones who had never performed in public before.
The event was headlined by L-FRESH The LION, an incredible Australian performer out of Western Sydney, who had just come back from touring London. L-FRESH was our first choice because his music is often about inclusion. It is often about messages against racism—all kinds of positive messages which resonate in our community. So I was incredibly thankful that he could find a way to fit us into his busy schedule, which is only getting busier. I salute him and Mirrah and all of his team.
The entire night was filmed by a team of second-year students from Griffith Film School led by Dr Richard Fabb, from Griffith's LiveLab. They are planning on recording some of the local artists' stories and packaging them up into a documentary. I am really excited about this. I am thankful to them for all their time and effort, and I cannot wait to see what they produce in their final documentary production.
I believe hip-hop music has the potential to be a real force for understanding and a real force for good. The Logan City Hip Hop Collective is our big chance in my local area to harness the power of music to help build a community that looks out for each other and looks after each other. I want to thank again the collective and all of the organisers—all of the people who made the night such a success. I am proud of everyone involved. I am proud to be from Logan City. There is no reason why this cannot be a big step towards Logan becoming the hip-hop capital of Australia. More than that, it is a big step towards telling our own stories our own way, in beats and rhymes that have purpose and meaning. For all of these reasons, I look forward to the next performance of the Logan City Hip Hop Collective. I thank everyone involved. I salute everyone involved. Look out for us again.
One in six people has a stroke in their lifetime. That means that, in this House of 150 representatives alone, 25 of us could suffer a stroke. It does not discriminate between men and women or young and old. Some strokes are fatal while others cause temporary or permanent disability. From 14 to 21 September is stroke awareness week. On Friday, I held an afternoon tea at my office. I met some inspiring stroke survivors, together with the allied health professionals who deliver fantastic services in my region.
Twelve months ago, 42-year-old Gretel Burgess was seven weeks off finishing her master's degree in social work. She was camping with her husband and children in the Daintree rainforest when suddenly it felt like someone had grabbed a shovel and whacked her on the back of the head. She lost her vision. She could not move. She was screaming with pain and suffered severe vertigo to a point where she was vomiting every time she was moved. She said: 'I felt like I was in a black helmet of darkness and the words were floating around, but I couldn't grab them. I couldn't tell my husband what was wrong.' She was rushed to the Cairns Hospital, where she was told she had had a stroke and, soon after, experienced another one. Doctors found that a leaky heart valve had allowed a blood clot to travel to her brain. She suffered lost vision, poor balance, fatigue, confusion, reduced independence and anxiety.
But, one year on, Gretel has come an incredibly long way. She was able to access the brilliant STEPS, or Skills To Enable People and Communities, program at the Cairns North Community Health Facility. Gretel describes it as 'a lifesaver'. She has now used her experience to her advantage, training to run the STEPS program as a peer facilitator. She has also, by the way, finished her studies, and she graduated last month. 'I've turned lemons into lemonade,' she said.
Around 440,000 stroke survivors are estimated to live in the community, and around one-third of the survivors are of working age. Roy Thorpe wrote to me earlier this year and told me that, at the age of 62, he had two heart failures and a serious stroke, leaving his right side not quite working like it used to. Roy outlined his struggle to recover while supporting his wife and two sons, aged nine and 12 at the time, on a disability pension. While he was in the rehabilitation ward in the Cairns Hospital, he did not feel like he should be in the same ward as—as he viewed it—'the old people'. He felt that his biggest disability was that he looked normal, a sentiment that was echoed also by Gretel.
After sitting at the kitchen table for six years, Roy was experiencing depression and decided to try and get back to work. A qualified civil structural engineer, he got a job with the Cairns city council at the age of 69, and he has now worked there for the past eight years. He has also seen his two sons graduate from university. Roy's story shows what can be achieved with a bit of support from government and, more importantly, the right attitude.
I also met Kerry Stingel, from Cairns Occupational Therapy, who is the President of the Far North Queensland Allied Health Association. Kerry says that, with the right rehabilitation, people can keep improving significantly after a stroke. But, without access to ongoing occupational therapy, speech and language pathology and physiotherapy, they can be more dependent than they need to be in the long term. Kerry's mum was an active, outgoing 69-year-old when she had a major stroke a year ago after heart surgery, resulting in ongoing problems with movement and speech.
Kerry told me about the difficulties in getting ongoing rehabilitation for people once they leave the hospital and are in their home or in an aged-care facility. She asks, 'Where is the funding for slow-stream rehabilitation?' She says the enhanced primary care rebate also needs to be increased. It has not changed for many years and only covers five sessions in total, for all allied health, in a calendar year.
I think this is something that we really need to consider. It is one of those very important issues that we need to consider when we are formulating future health policy, because it does take a lot, particularly when they are going out into aged-care facilities, to support people with these types of conditions. Just the time going there and back eats into those concessions that they have available.
In conclusion, in this National Stroke Week, my message is: be aware, live healthily and for goodness sake, above all else, get yourself checked very, very regularly.
It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30
I have spoken in the House many times before about this government's debits adding cuts to health services and hospitals across the nation and the harsh impact that this has, particularly on regional and rural areas. Today I am speaking about the Abbott government's changes to the model which provides incentives for GPs in regional areas. These incentives are dependent upon the health classifications of rural and remote areas under the new Modified Monash Model. Whilst I acknowledge that the new change will benefit many areas in my electorate, and indeed right throughout the country, the fact is that the reclassification of the town of Murwillumbah in my electorate of Richmond will be detrimental. I again request that the government look at providing an exemption in this case. Under the new system, Murwillumbah will be classified as MM 2. This will result in removing the incentives that had previously been in place under the old RA 2 classification which the town had. This means the incentives that attracted—and maintained—medical practitioners into the area will be completely removed. This will be detrimental to the town and, of course, for the locals in terms of their ability to access health services.
I have met with local GPs who have very serious concerns about this reclassification and the impacts it will have. I have also written to the health minister about the matter, requesting an exemption for or reclassification of the town under the new system. Just last week I received a disappointing response from Senator Nash, the Assistant Minister for Health, who unfortunately reaffirmed the government's position regarding the classification of Murwillumbah as MM 2. Whilst the decision may be based on the location of Murwillumbah and its proximity to a major town, I believe that this decision must be revisited, as the complex health needs of the people of Murwillumbah and surrounding areas require incentives to get GPs to the town.
The real concern is that the number of GPs will significantly decline due to the new classification. Some of the factors contributing to this situation are that the majority of GPs in Murwillumbah also act as VMOs for the local hospital. The burden on the hospital would be significant if GP numbers were reduced. There is also a very high proportion of elderly patients in the town and surrounding areas, with complex health needs, who require more intensive levels of ongoing care. Also the distance to specialists is very far, so local GPs are often required to do more work that would normally be referred to specialists in non-rural areas. The doctor-patient ratio has not been effectively considered in this modelling. GPs in this area do not just service the 8,000 Murwillumbah residents in town. Those in outlying areas bring the total to more than 20,000 residents. Also many of the current GPs are nearing retirement age and there is a huge need to fill all these positions. So without the ongoing incentives the task is made even more difficult. The fact is that the workload of GPs in Murwillumbah is vastly different from that in other regional and rural areas. That is why we need to have incentives in place to attract health professionals to this area. Indeed this MM 2 classification is unsuited to Murwillumbah and could only be damaging in terms of the long-term healthcare needs of the area. It really is a case, I think, of the government ignoring the local issues and the local concerns that have been put to the minister. Murwillumbah needs more GPs and the fact is less incentive means fewer doctors. So I again ask the Abbott government to please consider reclassifying or removing the MM2 classification from the town of Murwillumbah. (Time expired)
The Queensland Country Women's Association needs no introduction. For more than 90 years they have operated constantly to support women and families, particularly when times are tough. They do not just pop up in extreme crisis situations but are there for the long run, ensuring families get the continuing support they need. A group of members from the local Moggill branch recently travelled by bus through drought stricken Western Queensland to offer financial assistance and support to families under stress in these tough times. The group travelled to Toowoomba, Miles, Chinchilla, Roma, Injune, Springsure, Emerald, Alpha, Barcaldine, Longreach, Winton, Blackall, Augathella, Charleville, Morven and Mitchell to meet with many individuals and groups and hold some small 'meet and greets' with rural families.
During this time, they distributed application forms for their Public Rural Crisis Fund. This fund was established by the QCWA to help women and their families in turmoil, whether from natural disaster or personal crisis, and it is built from public donations and fundraising by members. Money raised is used to provide struggling families with store credit, payment of bills and grocery store vouchers. The QCWA have the mantra 'Send money, not stuff' because they want to ensure that everyone in the town is supported and money stays in the local community. We must not forget that townspeople also suffer from the burden of drought. Simply donating goods or stuff puts a strain on the local business owners, who are desperately trying to keep afloat. When a drought stricken family is given a grocery voucher or store credit, it contributes to two families—the farmer and the local small business owner.
The Public Rural Crisis Fund is one of the few charities where 100 per cent of the money raised goes back into regional, rural and remote communities to help them recover, rebuild and get ahead. The QCWA President, Robyn McFarlane, says:
We ensure … food is on the table, telephone bills are paid, and vehicles are registered.
Last year, the QCWA helped 330 families in need of assistance and this year they have already helped support 398 families. The QCWA have told me their need for support has dramatically increased in these heartbreaking times of drought and they desperately want to help women and their families and take some pressure off them. I have been told by one woman that it was wonderful just to be able to have the luxury of buying the brand of jam she used to.
A person or family who needs assistance can fill out an application form found on the QCWA website, where information on how to donate to the fund can also be found. All information is kept strictly confidential. With 85 per cent of Queensland in drought, it is really a critical situation in many of these towns. We should be doing what we can to support our families in rural communities. If you are thinking about where to go on your next trip, why not visit Western Queensland and help our rural communities in need of our support.
I rise today to condemn the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services' decision to cut support services for the forgotten Australians and former child migrants. One of the many cuts made to community organisations was to South Australia's Find & Connect Support Services. This cut is really starting to bite and it is jeopardising the opportunity for forgotten Australians and former child migrants to learn about their history and reunite with their families.
Following the incredibly important apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants by the former Labor government, the government of the day allocated $26.5 million to establish the Find & Connect Support Services. Unfortunately, the Abbott government turned their backs on the forgotten Australians in December last year when they cut $200,000 from the Elm Place Relationships Australia service. This cut is equivalent to almost half their funding and, as a result, this service has been forced to axe essential support services.
One very important service that was being provided was the highly skilled historian. The historian was working to help clients search family records, orphanage records and other records to help people learn about their history and, importantly, reunite with their families. But because of this cut the service can no longer employ this historian. The cut is so large that they have also had to cut other support services such as counselling and other social activities. This is the only service in South Australia and there is a huge void left as a result of this cut.
Last week I met with Josephine Little Hawk, who is a forgotten Australian and a client of Elm Place. Josephine told me that one thing she really wants to do is search the records from the orphanage where she grew up and reconnect with her family. But without the help of the experienced historian she is worried she will never be able to learn about her past. She is also worried that, because of this cut, many like her will not be able to access the counselling and other support services they desperately need.
The apology in 2009 was incredibly important to our nation because it acknowledged the treatment and the trauma experienced by these children and acknowledged that it was unacceptable. As a nation, we said what happened to them was both wrong and real. They experienced the loss of their families and their identities, which is why it is so important for us to provide as much support as possible to help them understand their histories, reconnect with their families and heal the wounds of the past. But, instead of providing more support, the Abbott government is taking that support away. I call on the Abbott government to support our forgotten Australians and former child migrants and reinstate this funding immediately.
Gregory Wayne Hunt of Old Beach was a passionate, generous, caring, good-humoured and most decent man. He passed away, very sadly, on 23 July this year. Greg was the Southern Midlands Council community development and recreational officer. In a previous life he had been a bank manager, but he chose a career and lifestyle where he could give so much back to his community.
Greg was a familiar face at so many community events in the Southern Midlands. The Southern Midlands school holiday program involved Oatlands District High School, Bagdad Primary School, Kempton Primary School and Campania District High School, and all benefited from his work. He was something akin to a pied piper for the young people in his community. The work that he did in his role, successfully applying for government and community grants, benefited many groups and organisations in the southern Midlands, including the Men's Shed at Oatlands.
Greg always found a way to get things done with his creative persistence. My fondest memory of Greg, having seen him in action, was as the master of ceremonies at the infamous Bagdad Music Hall, an iconic annual event held at the Bagdad Community Club. Not only was he the flamboyant MC for nearly 20 years; he was a scriptwriter, a poet, a comedian and a singer. He made the world a better place because of his enduring decency. I, like all those who came to know him, offer my sympathy to his wife, Gaye, and his son, Paul. Vale, Greg Hunt—a good and decent man.
One of the great things about representing the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region is the opportunity to join with them to celebrate community milestones and achievements. My day on Saturday started at Esk at 7.30 am, when I spoke on politics and faith at the Esk Men's Breakfast. There were representatives of many churches in the local area. Food and conversation were in good supply and I want to thank Pastor Sid Firrell for his invitation.
After breakfast, it was down the Brisbane Valley Highway to the town of Glamorgan Vale, where I joined many people to celebrate the 140th anniversary of the Glamorgan Vale State School. That included a street parade, historical displays, a luncheon and fireworks. I want to thank the principal, Troy Coombs, who has been there for about six or seven years now, as well as teachers, parents and students past and present. It was a wonderful day. I particularly want to congratulate President Shane Beattie of the P&C subcommittee, who worked tirelessly for over a year to make Saturday the success it was.
After Glamorgan Vale it was over to Rosewood, where I emceed the seventh annual festival and street parade. I did that, along with the member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden, and Ipswich mayor, Paul Pisasale. In Ipswich, it is widely known that it is dangerous to stand between Paul Pisasale and an open microphone, but on Saturday I think I held my own!
The parade was magnificent, bigger and better than ever, with over 200 floats, walkers, classic cars and utes. I thank the Rosewood Festival Committee; parade organiser, Diane Barry; and Councillor David Pahlke for organising yet another wonderful Rosewood Festival.
Finally, from Rosewood it was over to Springfield, on the eastern edge of the Blair electorate, for the official opening of the Orion Lagoon at Robelle Domain. The Orion Lagoon is Ipswich's new 'Southbank'; it is better than the one in Brisbane. As an Ipswichian, I can say it is clearly bigger and better. And, if you do not believe me, ask Laurie Lawrence, who also believes that and pronounced that on Saturday.
By the year's end the lagoon will feature a kiosk, barbeque facilities and of course a lagoon, with about 40 lifeguards employed at that particular location. Stage 1 of Robelle Domain Parklands brings in 200,000 people a year into Ipswich. It is estimated that Stage 2 will bring 120,000 people to Ipswich. With a population of just under 200,000 it shows the contribution it will make not only to the economy but also to the friendship, fellowships and community life in the Ipswich region.
I thank the former federal Labor government for contributing $15 million to the Regional Development Australia Fund. It would not have happened without the great participation of Ipswich City Council. I congratulate Mayor Paul Pisasale and the council on that. The only shame of the whole thing is the years of the Campbell Newman LNP government and the fact that it did not contribute the necessary $5 million to make it even better.
It is with sadness today that I rise in this chamber to talk about the loss of Bart Cummings. As I rise, the state funeral for Bart Cummings is taking place in Sydney. Bart Cummings, in fact, died in the Lindsay electorate, last Sunday, at his farm, Princes Farm, in the historic Castlereagh.
Many in the local area had known Bart to be sick for awhile and the fact that he had spent time at either Castlereagh, at Princes Farm, or Nepean Hospital. He died peacefully, with his family around him.
Bart was such a legend, because he transcended the industry. He was truly an Australian champion and a champion for all Australians.
Many people are in touch with the racing industry on only one day a year—that first Tuesday in November, the Melbourne Cup. The legend of Bart Cummings is 12 Cup winners from 11 horses. In 1965 a horse called Light Fingers, ridden by Roy Higgins, got Bart his first taste of Melbourne Cup victory. But it was not just the first time he was near the winner's podium.
A decade earlier his father won the Cup on his champion horse Comic Court. The one win that people tend to remember Bart for was the one in 1996, with Saintly. Saintly had a very long stride and, amazingly, won both the Cox Plate and the Melbourne Cup that year.
And, in a nice way, it was fitting that as Bart passed peacefully one of his mares, Holy One, a close relative of Saintly, gave birth to a healthy foal in the paddocks there at Princes Farm.
Bart Cummings will be a direct influence on the thoroughbred industry for many years to come. Today my thoughts go to the entire thoroughbred industry, to his family, his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren.
To Anthony and the Cummings family: we would like to think that in this Melbourne Cup we may have that last chance for Bart to make that baker's dozen and win 13 Melbourne Cups.
Last week Australia celebrated National Flag Day. Now, few Australians may fly the Australian flag in their backyard, but many of us wear it, whether it be on caps, capes, thongs or T-shirts. And why not! We love Australia and we love to celebrate the fact that we live in what is, indisputably, the greatest nation on earth. Whatever background they come from, Australians share a joy of their good luck from being born in this great nation. But what does our flag say about Australia? What does it say to us? What does it say to our region? My view is that the Australian flag represents the country that we once were, not the nation that we have now become.
The Australian flag was first flown in September 1901 at the Exhibition Building in Melbourne, the then seat of the federal government. The flag was one of two winning designs from an international competition. Edmund Barton is claimed to have said it encapsulated 'the Australian identity and pride'. Australian identity was much different then than it is today. Consider that in June of that year, Edmund Barton introduced the bill for the Immigration Restriction Act into that same parliament—a bill that formed the basis of what was better known as the White Australia policy.
We have come along way since then. Australia is a nation transformed. Approximately 15 per cent of all Australians were born in Asia, with many more claiming Asian heritage. In total over one in four Australians is born overseas. Hindu is our fastest growing religion. China is our largest trading partner, our second is Japan, our fourth is Korea and our fifth is Singapore. First- and second-generation Asian Australians are making significant contributions on the international stage. Jason Day, the PGA tour's hottest player, is of Filipino heritage. This year's Asian Cup player of the tournament, Australia's Massimo Luongo, is of Italian and Indonesian heritage. Guy Sebastian has Malay Tamil heritage. Terence Tao, a Fields Medal winner, is of Chinese Australian heritage. Silicon Valley CEO Tan Le is of Vietnamese and Australian heritage. Political philosopher Tim Soutphommasane has Chinese and Laotian heritage.
What does the fact that the Union Jack remains on Australia's flag say to them? Does this represent them? Does this reflect them on the international stage? Few Australians would say that we are not a far greater nation today than we were in the time of Edmund Barton. But, if we can acknowledge that we have changed since those times and acknowledge that the Australian identity has changed since the Federation parliament, can we also not acknowledge that we need to update our national symbols—that we, like Canada and as New Zealand is currently doing, need to engage in a discussion about whether we as a nation can come together and adopt a flag that better represents the nation that we have become and better reflects the diverse, multicultural, open society that we now are? I hope that in future on National Flag Day we will be able to celebrate such a flag.
We have just celebrated two important community milestones in the Wollondilly Shire. I was delighted to join residents for the reopening of the Picton-Thirlmere-Bargo RSL Hall—a bit of a mouthful, that. This is a bright new centre for veterans and for their families and also a venue for a wide range of local organisations. Under the extraordinary leadership of Tim Bennett-Smith, the RSL sub-branch has transformed a run-down building by constructing a new external awning and patio, a memorial garden, fencing, a new kitchen and a display area for historical items. Funding of this project was truly a joint community effort. Grants were provided by the federal government through Veterans' Affairs; by the state member for Wollondilly, Jai Rowell, through the New South Wales government's Community Building Partnership program; and by the Veolia Mulwaree Trust, a local philanthropic organisation which supports a wide range of worthy community projects, most of which are in the electorate of Hume. RSL state council president Rod White and Wollondilly Shire Council General Manager Luke Johnson spoke highly of the benefits this upgraded facility will bring to the local community. The hall is already well used by number of veterans groups, including the RSL sub-branch, the Legacy Widows Club, the RSL Ladies Auxiliary, veterans indoor bowlers and an RSL craft group. Noonameena Girl Guides, Tahmoor Lions Club, Tahmoor-Thirlmere Ex-services Club, the White Dove Church, Thirlmere Football Club and Thirlmere Primary School are some of the community groups also enjoying the space. Congratulations to everyone involved, especially sub-branch president Tim Bennett-Smith on his commitment to the community and to the memory of those who have served our country.
I was also delighted to meet up with the Prime Minister's wife, Mrs Margie Abbott, at a special lunch in Picton recently. Picton VIEW Club was marking its 50th birthday celebration. I congratulate the organising committee, who spent many months planning a very special tribute to the work of this group of women over the past half century. It was a pleasure to celebrate it along with VIEW's national vice president, Sue Field; Picton VIEW president Fay Cavenagh and her executive; and Picton Bowling Club chairman Bob Lang. The Picton branch of the VIEW Club has lived up to its charter of advocating 'the voice, interests and education of women'. Mrs Abbott spoke about the importance of fostering the development of children aged under five years and also told us about some of the charitable organisations she supports. There was some sadness on the day as members paid tribute to Anne Middleton, who passed away only days before the 50th celebrations. Mrs Middleton was the club's founding, inaugural president in 1955 and will be sadly missed by all members of the wider Picton community. It is the vital contribution of members of the local RSL sub-branch and the Picton VIEW Club which makes the Wollondilly Shire such a wonderful, warm community to be a part of.
On Tuesday 25 August the Shortland electorate sporting champions presentation took place in my office. We had phenomenal athletes who attended. I commence by thanking Dive Pasco, Clive Mart and John Jenkins for their work on the committee that selected those successful athletes, and my staff member Melanie Field, who promotes this within the electorate and also organised the presentation on the 25th.
The winners this quarter were Chloe Arens, 18 years old, from Mount Hutton, for netball, the Netball NSW State Championships; Lawson Christiansen from Swansea Heads for surf lifesaving, the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships; Zoe Cooksey from Eleebana for gymnastics, the Australian Gymnastics Championships; Lucy Coon from Charlestown for water polo, the under-16 girls water polo nationals; Lachlan Davis from Dudley for swimming, the New South Wales combined high schools state swimming championships; Ethan Dawber from Valentine for basketball; Maja Deans from Kahibah for New South Wales cross country; Chloe Eather from Caves Beach for the Netball NSW State Age Championships; Samuel Forsberg from Charlestown for volleyball, the Australian Junior Volleyball Championships; Connor Freeman from Gateshead for lawn bowls, and it is great to see a young person doing lawn bowls; Maya Freeman from Valentine for the Australian Gymnastics Championships; Michael Jones from Charlestown for the Australian Junior Volleyball Championships; Meggan Lovett from Jewells for the Netball NSW State Age Championships; Bella Niarros from Warners Bay for the Australian Swimming Championships; Joel Rauch from Belmont for the under-18s Australian junior basketball championships; Josie Robson from Belmont North for the Pacific School Games basketball; Jackson Ryan from Eleebana for the New South Wales combined high schools state swimming championships; Callum Sanderson from Windale for the New South Wales combined high Schools state swimming championships; Isaac Smith from Eleebana for the Primary Schools Sports Association under-12 national hockey championships; and Dylan Moore from Chain Valley who represented at the State Subaru Golf Championship.
These are all fine athletes and they are all great young people. They know how to set goals and they know how to work towards their goal. They not only excel in their sport but they also excel in their schoolwork and within the community.
I would like to inform the House about two recent developments in my Bennelong electorate. Macquarie Park is Sydney's fastest growing businesses district and is home to some of the country's most innovative and exciting industries. Australia's first hydrogen car charging station sits alongside international pharmaceutical giants and world-leading innovators like Cochlear and Macquarie University. Into this stellar crowd of overachieving companies a new college has just opened, and I was honoured to attend its opening day. Excelsia College has moved into a state-of-the-art facility for its growing numbers of students. Currently the college has 3,500 students and offers around 10 undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Moving to this new location will allow them to grow exponentially along with all the other high-growth companies in the vicinity. I was delighted to join Excelsia for their official opening last week and I warmly welcome Excelsia to their new premises in Bennelong, the innovation capital of Australia.
I also wish to promote the extraordinary efforts made by North Ryde Rotary in recent weeks. Every year they host the Macquarie Park fun run in late August, and this year was no exception. They welcomed a field of 361 total registrants—up a massive 37 per cent on last year. Half of those entrants entered the five-kilometre run, which was won by Marilyn Beatty in the women's division and Matt Dawson in the men's division. Matt was defending his first place title from a year ago, looking for a hat trick. Some of the colleges at nearby Macquarie University also competed against each other with Dunmore Lang College taking both golds through the efforts of Judith McLeish in the women's division and Tim Porter in the men's division. Another 160 competitors entered the two-kilometre run, which I had the honour of starting, and it was won by two of the younger competitors who perhaps took the definition of walking a little liberally; nevertheless, Abby Flanagan and Vincent Contini took home the deserved awards for this event.
The whole day was in aid of raising awareness and money for mental health. The target was $10,000, but this was well and truly eclipsed with over $16,000 raised by the end of the day. A huge part of the success was the efforts of Graham McMaster, who raised $5,000 on his own. This is an incredible achievement and will be greatly appreciated by our local charities. I am sure the House would like to join me in congratulating this incredible effort from my hardworking local Rotary club, and I look forward to next year's event, which I am sure will be even bigger and better.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that every school day across Australia, school students are carrying heavy school bags on their way to and around schools and this poses a risk to the long term health of young people in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that reference sources are an important part of the curriculum and for individual courses; and
(3) encourages the Australian and state and territory governments to:
(a) replace hard copy reference books with CD and thumb drive versions of reference materials to lighten the load of students and reduce the incidences of muscular and skeletal injuries to the developing bodies of school students; and
(b) set a target timeline for the replacement of reference materials for school students.
My motion is about schoolbags—how heavy they are for Australian students and how they pose a risk to the musculoskeletal development of young people across this country—but it is also about the opportunity that technology provides. That opportunity is to convert reference materials into removable CDs, thumb drives, other media and even licensed web based access to reference materials, thereby replacing heavy textbooks. It is about tackling this problem with leadership by governments, schools and parents. All must acknowledge the challenge and see that there are ways that solutions can be found that can be done quickly and without great cost.
I was recently contacted by an uncle of a boy in year 7 in a Perth school. As he was picking his nephew up to drive him to school one day, he lifted the schoolbag and found it to be very heavy. He weighed it and found the bag to be 7.5 kilograms. Apparently, it was a heavy day but not unusual. He then asked his nephew to weigh himself, and he weighed 37 kilos. This represents a load of 20 per cent of the boy's body weight.
I know that a lot has changed since I was at school. More research has been done; backpacks are common now, unlike when I was at school. Indeed, more students carry their backpacks using both straps. That is true, but the weight of the load is still a continuing problem. I think a lot of parents will know this when they pick up their children's schoolbags and consider them heavy.
I appreciate the demands of load carrying because, when I was a cadet at the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1988 and 1989, we used to carry 20 or even 30 per cent of our body weight on some occasions. When I returned in the late 1990s as a staff member, there was a rule that cadets should only carry 10 per cent of their weight. In the wider Army context, I knew that, even in the 1980s, soldiers used to buy their own packs to look after their backs when the service issued ones were not any good. Most bought ALICE packs, which had a frame that helped distribute the load.
With regard to school students and loads being carried, I do think things have changed and there is more attention paid to such matters these days. Many schools now have lockers, or at least secondary schools do, so less weight needs to be carried around the schools, but, because secondary students have multiple classes each day, study and homework obligations often require that a range of reference materials be taken to and from school each day. It is here that the opportunity exists, particularly when a school has a laptop policy, for a genuine drive towards replacing books with other media as reference materials. I am not suggesting that such a push should be at the expense of the written word or note-taking but, where possible, converting the reference material from hard copy books to multimedia options should be pursued.
In the United Kingdom and Ireland, it has been reported that, because of school related load carrying, there are increasing numbers of children developing irreversible back deformities and half of all children suffer back pain by age 14. Spinal abnormalities and even scoliosis are increasing problems. These reports suggest that schoolbags may be twice the weight of those carried 10 years ago. I find it very scary that the experts consider that regularly carrying more than 15 per cent of body weight over shoulders risks long-term and permanent damage for young, developing bodies.
A study of first-year secondary school students in Ireland found that the mean schoolbag weight was 6.2 kilograms and that 68 per cent of the bags exceeded 10 per cent of body weight. Almost all had backpacks but only 65 per cent carried them with both straps. It was also found, not surprisingly, that weights were greatest on Fridays—6.7 kilos—as students carried home more books for homework and study over the weekend. From that study and from what I have found locally it appears that such problems are common between the UK, Ireland and Australia. I believe that across this country loads in excess of 10 per cent of body weight are being carried and that this represents a health threat to our children and an increasing public health challenge for our nation.
It is therefore my view that this is worthy of the attention of COAG when education ministers meet. It is absolutely the right time for school and education systems to look for the opportunities in this challenge. In particular, if the school has a laptop policy then it should set a time frame for converting all possible reference materials to a form of electronic media. If a laptop policy is unrealistic for a school community then attention needs to be given to alternative measures, which should include a policy of bags with wheels or greater monitoring of loads by the students and by the schools. Although backpacks are probably more socially acceptable for secondary school students, policies that encourage wheelie bags would change the perception over time—let alone their being far more comfortable and less onerous for load carrying. I believe that this is an important policy issue that should be addressed as a priority.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I congratulate the member for Cowan for bringing this important issue to the parliament. I am going to address the issue from the perspective of spinal care for young people and the need to ensure that proper spinal care is in place and that young people understand the issues surrounding it. One of those issues is the fact that carrying heavy schoolbags does put a strain on a young person's spine. It was very interesting to hear the member for Cowan mention wheelie bags. That would be an ideal solution. When I set up my mobile offices shopping centres I always use a wheelie bag because it is a lot easier to carry material. The member for Cowan also talked about replacing hard-copy reference books with CDs or thumb drives and limiting the loads that young people are carrying. That is a very desirable approach but it also comes with some risks. I will highlight that in my contribution to this debate. I was horrified when I heard him say that they weighed a bag that was 7.5 kilograms, since the recommended weights for bags are 3.9 kilos for 12- to 13-year olds, 4.3 kilos for 14- to 15-year-olds and 4.8 kilos for 16- to 17-year-olds. That just shows the amounts of textbooks and resources that young people are forced to carry these days.
Of course it is very important that school bags be carried properly. Both shoulders of the backpack should be put on, and young people should be encouraged to remove their backpacks when they are standing around. If you look at some high school students you will find that they tend to slip their bag over one shoulder. That is doing great damage to their spine. It is very important that the load be evenly dispersed, as has already been mentioned. Students should not ride bicycles when they are carrying a backpack. That is quite dangerous, though it is quite common. Again, it is very important that those backpacks are not overloaded. If young people are regularly carrying laptops, they should be encouraged to check the weight of that laptop. If you have a laptop along with reference material it can make the backpack even heavier. And if you have a laptop you should be carrying it close to your back.
Computing itself raises some issues around spinal care in young people, different to load carrying. It also raises the issue of spending a long time in front of computers. Workplaces ensure that they are ergonomically designed for people. The computer should be in the right place, the screen should be at eye level and approximately 50 to 60 centimetres from their eyes. They should be encouraged to work away from the computer for periods of time.
On one hand you have got the issue of carrying heavy books and, on the other hand, you have got young people spending an inordinate amount of time in front of computers. Our students, our young people, should be made aware that there are risks associated with both. There should be a five-minute break after every hour in front of a computer and a five-minute break after every 30 minutes in front of a laptop. Prolonged use of laptops is not ideal for spinal health of young students. Using laptops for extended periods can cause problems, including visual problems.
So I think it is really important that we look at the whole issue of spinal care in young people. It is important that we look not only at lessening the load but also ensuring that computer use is undertaken appropriately.
I commend the member for Cowan for putting this motion before the House. When you buy a textbook now, the norm is generally to have access to the textbook in an online form. The recent World Innovation Summit for Education global survey predicts that books will, largely, have been replaced by online learning by 2030, in 15 years time. And what the member for Cowan has identified is the fact that that is the direction of education, going more and more towards online learning, and yet schoolkids are carrying bags that are much heavier than the correct, appropriate weight. And from my own family experience, the kids often carry not just one bag but two or three. Spinal pain is one of the most costly and disabling problems affecting adults in industrialised countries. Most population based surveys of back pain record a one-year prevalence of 50 per cent and a lifetime prevalence of between 60 and 80 per cent, which is concerning in terms of the loss of productivity, healthcare costs, and personal pain and suffering.
Disability from back pain places a significant burden on the individual and their community. Back problems are the leading specific musculoskeletal cause of health system spending in Australia. Adolescents have been repeatedly identified around the world as suffering from spinal pain. From an Australian perspective, approximately 50 per cent of adolescents tend to report spinal pain—that is, either neck or lower back pain. There is a strong association between adolescent lower back pain, particularly for young people in the rapid years of spinal growth—that is, 12 to 14 years for girls and 13 to 16 years for boys—and repeatedly carrying heavy school backpacks. Growing numbers of children are developing back problems because of the weight of the bags that they carry to school. Doctors are reporting a rise in the cases of spinal abnormalities in students, including disfiguring curvatures, such as scoliosis. One potential source of the problem is overloaded schoolbags that are up to double the size of those carried 10 years ago.
Students routinely carry bags filled with heavy books, laptops, sports kit and packed lunches. The Chiropractors' Association of Australia has raised concerns about backpack trends amongst school children and the potential long-term damage that could be caused by overladen and ill-fitting bags. According to the CAA, 90 per cent of school children have bad posture when carrying their bags and could experience spinal damage as a result. The CAA surveyed 346 students in Adelaide and 400 parents weighed their children's bags. They found weights of up to 17 per cent of a student's body weight in the bag; the average was 6.6 kilograms. Now health experts say children risk long-term and ultimately permanent damage if they regularly carry more than 10 per cent of their body weight over their shoulders. And that recommendation has been around since 1977.
Putting too much stress on a child's back at such an important stage of growth and development will result in serious spinal problems both immediately and later on in life. Some of the problems caused by bad posture at an early age include reduced mobility, early degeneration of bones and joints, increased vulnerability to injuries and unhealthy pressures on a child's nervous system.
The advances in technology give us an opportunity to significantly reduce this weight, by converting reference materials into removable CDs, thumb drives, other media and even allowing licensed web-based access to their reference materials. Some schools are already addressing this problem by replacing textbooks completely with iPads and e-texts.
I would like to commend the member for Cowan on raising this important issue. Let's hope that we see some movement in the school sector, to move with the times and make sure that children are not carrying heavy backpacks.
I rise today, a little aghast, to speak on the motion moved by the member for Cowan. As most people here will know, I came from school education before becoming a member of this place. I raise the point that, under the previous Labor government, we had a federal review of education to see what it would take to improve the educational outcomes of students across this country. That review found that equity in funding was the critical issue that needed to be addressed in education. So I find myself here in this place discussing something that, I think, was realistically an issue in schools a decade ago.
Initial concerns around the weight of bags were addressed in schools in a variety of ways. In the school where I was working it was addressed by a timetable change, not driven by the weight of bags but driven by students' ability to concentrate and by trying to build resilience of study in our students. In the school that I was working in we took a decent amount of time to study this. We determined that we would move from 50-minute sessions to 100-minute sessions, in high schools, to ensure that students had time to connect with what they were learning, time to build the collaborative approaches, as well as time to build in individual concentration and focused writing practice for, in most cases, 20-minute periods in that 100 minutes. One of the side effects of this, of course, was that students only did three subjects across a given day and not six, which of course reduced the load in their schoolbags by 50 per cent, if the timetable was done productively.
Another thing that had an influence on the weight of schoolbags was students not bringing a change of clothes for sport but wearing their sport uniform on the day that they were to do physical education or sport, which of course also reduced the weight they were carrying in their bags.
The most important thing that happened, and I am sure people in this place remember, was the Building the Education Revolution, which caused a digital disruption in our schools across this country with the introduction of personalised computers for students. We have heard a lot of talk in the chamber this morning about laptops. People may not realise that most schools introduced netbooks and iPads which, of course, weigh a lot less than a laptop. Of course, Building the Education Revolution not only put more desktop computers into schools but it also broke, if you like, a pattern between textbooks and digital technologies and that has now been going on for some time.
So I am very surprised that it is still an issue in schools across this country. I would have thought that most had moved on. I would have thought that most school communities had addressed this issue some time ago, because it is 15 years since most textbooks had CDs delivered with them, providing the capacity for students to put the CD in their bag and take it to school.
But I would raise this matter. It is at least seven years that publishers have provided interactive online content. It is not looking out to 2030. Online textbooks and the ability to use the interactive websites that go with them have been available to schools for at least seven years and most schools are using those resources very wisely. Of course, there are an enormous number of schools across the country and perhaps some in remote and regional areas are not getting to this place as quickly as others, but I am still surprised that this has not moved much further than it has.
I remember, as we all remember, carrying The Web of Life and the heavy maths textbook in my schoolbag on my back. It is a long time since I did year 12. Backpacks were not de rigueur in that day. We carried bags that we slung over one shoulder, off one strap, and backpacks were introduced to stop that practice and ensure that both straps were going over children's backs. I do not think this is something the federal government can actually enforce. I hear a lot about a nanny state and then find myself here talking about things that are well and truly in the purview of parents and in the purview of schools. I am surprised, because what is in the purview of those opposite today is to improve the educational outcomes of students across this country, and I call on them to pay attention to that.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) all students, including students with disability, deserve to be recognised as learners and supported to achieve their best;
(b) research by Children with Disability Australia shows that as many as one in four children with disability have been denied school enrolment, almost one in five only attend school part time, and 68 per cent of parents believe their children do not receive adequate support at school; and
(c) the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into the education of students with disability is underway, giving parents, teachers, students and others with experience and expertise, the opportunity to highlight problems in our school system and identify best practice for the future;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) hard work and dedication of teachers, parents, schools and carers across Australia; and
(b) many programs and services helping students to achieve their best every day; and
(3) calls upon the Government to:
(a) keep its promises on funding and support for students with disability;
(b) continue working with the states and territories to complete the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability program, and implement the Gonski disability loading;
(c) reverse its cuts to education, including the termination of the More Support for Students with Disabilities program; and
(d) recognise that supporting students with disability is a long term investment that pays dividends for students and Australia.
I know I am not the only Australian and not the only person in this chamber who has been shaken by stories that we have read in newspapers over the past year about how our school system is struggling to deal with students with disability. We have read reports about widespread incidents of bullying against students with disability. We have heard from teachers who are really struggling without the training and support that they need to deal with students with special needs. There was one absolutely awful incident at the margins of this debate of a young autistic student here in the ACT who was being kept at some points during their education in a cage in one of their classrooms.
These are shocking stories and I raise them in the parliament not to condemn the various incidents that I have mentioned in particular but because these incidents, according to Children with Disability Australia, which is the peak body that represents children with disability and their families, are growing in number. The stories of these children are important for many reasons. They are important because they highlight that there are individuals in our community whose human rights are not being respected, but they also highlight that there is a crisis in our system in how we are providing educational opportunities for students with disabilities. The examples that I have put forward are some extreme examples within this problem. It is incredibly important context that there are some students with disability who are getting a great education in our system, and we should not ignore that. But in a submission to the Senate inquiry that is currently underway on this subject Children with Disability Australia wrote that amongst these families:
A quality education experience for a student with disability is still likened to winning the lottery.
I know from speaking with my colleagues that this is the feedback we as members of parliament get from lots of the families in our communities who are managing this problem.
In recent months, Labor has established a Senate inquiry into this incredibly important issue, and I want to raise some of the issues that we are hearing and that are coming up in that inquiry. Reading some of the submissions that have been made to the inquiry is frankly incredibly gruelling, especially for the many in this chamber who are parents of children themselves. What we have learned so far in the inquiry is that children with disability are regularly plagued by high rates of bullying, exclusion and abuse. Parents talk about a culture of low expectation, where the education system is not treating these students as though they have the capacity to learn, to grow and to develop. We hear in particular about patchy and insufficient funding for these students, many of whom need special support. One of the really disappointing consequences we are finding is that, because of the lack of discussion about this subject and because of the lack of conversation within schools, students who are exhibiting difficult behaviour are being labelled as 'naughty' and treated as though they were doing something wrong, when in fact they are not getting the support that they need.
Perhaps not surprisingly, hearing these facts, the outcomes for these students are not nearly where they ought to be given the prosperous country that we live in today A third of young people with disability do not ever finish school. It is an absolutely gut-wrenching fact that one in four students with disability in Australia has been refused school entry at some point during their school career. We know that seven in 10 parents of students with disability say that their students are not getting the support that they need. I believe this is a really urgent national problem.
We heard some good rhetoric from the government before the election and, I have to say, I really hope that we see some good bipartisanship on the issue of disability. That is certainly the talk that we hear. There are some specific proposals in the Gonski school reforms that relate to students with special need and students with disability, and I am a bit frustrated that the undertakings that were made before the election by the Abbott government have not been fulfilled to date. I call on the government to fulfil the election commitments that they made in relation to specific funding for students with disability. This is a really urgent and important task, especially when we consider what is a very surprisingly high number of young people in this country who struggle with disability. What people in the disability community often talk about is frustration that people with disability sometimes feel they are to be hidden from the broader community. There are 200,000 Australians of school age who have a disability. On average, there should be a child with disability in every Australian classroom, but that is not what we tend to see. We are in the middle of a really important shift in our community in thinking about people with disability, from focusing on what people cannot do to what they can do. Education is the next frontier of this debate and I encourage the parliament to tackle this issue head-on.
Thank you. Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. I thank the member for Hotham for raising such an important issue. It is an issue that has many complex levels within it. I take this from the International Year of Disabled Persons, when that was first a focus for educational reform in Australia. The issue is the mindset and understanding of people who are not only within schools but within communities. In that era, people with disabilities or cerebral palsy or a special medical condition were often placed in special education centres and we did not have the interaction that we saw emerge in the 80s when children were brought into mainstream classrooms. When you take an initiative like that, you also have to consider the training for teachers. The point that the member for Hotham made, in terms of the teaching profession, is critical. In those days you were dealing with 30 children in a classroom and, if you had somebody in your classroom with very particular needs, there was also the requirement for support and additional effort, not only by the school but by the education sector.
When this motion was proposed, I spoke to both major jurisdictions in Western Australia: Catholic Education and state education. I want to acknowledge the intent and effort made by those jurisdictions in trying to provide for students in an inclusive environment. In fact, one of them stated that students with sensory disabilities or those with ongoing medical conditions are eligible to receive services through the Department of Education or their local Catholic schools through a range of services that they provide. But the other layer in this that they alluded to is community perception. We look at anybody who is different to what we consider meets normal expectation in classrooms or in human beings with a lack of understanding. We never make the effort to be as tolerant as we should be, but we also set benchmarks at a lower level; we never look at expectations. I look at some people who have progressed, like Hawking. If you looked at him in his wheelchair, you would not get a perception of his intellect and capacity and his contribution to the world. In my own teaching profession and career, I had children with disabilities of varying degrees. It was hard work, but I also had a responsibility as a teacher to ensure that consideration was given to what students within my classroom needed. Teachers need to understand a child in their presence and need to think about the potential of that individual. Often we forget about the potential and capacity that a person has.
I have been following the Senate inquiry, like you have, Member for Hotham. I think that some of the submissions I have read are gut wrenching in terms of parents wanting systems to respond to their child, and every parent wants that, but in many cases they are frustrated that some of the very particular services that they need for their child to progress in their educational pathway are not there. I hope that what comes out of the Senate inquiry is a rethink of the mindset around the services and supports that are needed by students and children with disabilities. I know that health and education systems will always say that the expectation of parents is far greater than their capacity to deliver—both the professional approach and the resources required. I think as a society we have an obligation to make sure that the weakest of those in our society, or those who are challenged in their disposition in life, are accorded the same opportunity as anybody else. On that basis, I would hope that the report comes out with some very far-reaching recommendations that cause the rethinking of the delivery of education and training.
I held a disability forum in my first term, and the mothers on that forum all expressed to me that they not only wanted their children to get a good sound education but also wanted them to look at training and career pathways. When they leave this earth, they want their children to be in a position where they can cope for themselves, be part of a community and be accepted for who they are and their capacity to contribute to their community.
I am absolutely pleased to rise to speak on what I believe is an incredibly important issue. I thank the member for Hotham and I thank the member for Hasluck. This is an issue that goes to the heart of our schools and our communities. Having come from a public sector education in Victoria, I know the work that has gone on in schools to ensure that students' human rights are being met and to ensure that, from the principal down, inclusive practices are occurring on the ground in our schools. I have worked at the coal face with parents of students with disability as they enter what they often perceive to be a hostile environment. This is difficult work. It is time consuming work. It is important work. It is imperative that all of our students in all of our schools have high expectations made of them from their parents and from their schools.
I was one who was heartened before the election to hear Minister Pyne, now the minister, say on 23 August that more funding for people with disability through the disability loading would be in our schools in 2015. It is now nine months into 2015 and this promise of new funding has not been met. The reality is that, because of this government's cruel broken promise, students with disability will simply be locked into educational disadvantage and will not have the resources they need to meet their full potential. Despite how hard schools work, the resources need to be put in place.
The review should have been completed. That is why there is a Senate inquiry. Labor initiated it because we believe every student, including students with a disability, deserves a great education. We believe they all need to have expectations set, that they can learn and that support is put in place to ensure that they do learn. We have heard from the member for Hotham of the research by Children with Disability Australia showing that as many as one in four children with a disability have been denied enrolment. This is an appalling statistic, but it is a statistic that can be addressed with action from this government.
Keeping promises is what government is about, and we have thousands of families waiting for this promise to be kept. In Victoria the state government is conducting a government schools funding review conducted by Steve Bracks, our former Premier. He has released an interim report this weekend, and there are a couple of key things in there that I think are worthy to echo in this chamber today. Schools and the community want trust and confidence in Victoria's funding system—a fairly simple statement but one that we need to see heeded. They want a system that provides resources to schools based on the educational needs of students to obtain a high-quality education—again, something that needs to be addressed by this government. Specifically, with students with disability, the interim report reads:
Stakeholders are concerned that funding is not meeting the diverse needs of students with disability, compounded by the growth in numbers of students. Many parents have fought for extra funds for their children and will resist schools pooling funds for broader use. Concerns were also raised that children with learning difficulties are not funded in the same ways as students with disabilities.
These are the issues that Minister Pyne's promise before the election go to the core of, and yet it is September 2015 and still we hear nothing. Our parents, our teachers and our carers work incredibly hard but they need to be supported by government. They need this government, they need Minister Pyne, to focus on the things that are needed in our schools, to take responsibility—not have the federal government walk away from its responsibility in our schools. This is an issue that differs state by state, and until we get a national approach to students with disability in our schools we will continue to have what happens in Queensland to be different from what happens in Victoria, and to drive parents to despair.
I was sent a photograph by my younger brother, who is now a primary school principal. It was his grade 3 class, Texas State School, 1970—34 children in the class, one teacher, no computers, no data projectors, nothing. Six of the kids in the whole class had shoes on. Every one of those children could read and write. The way our curriculum is, the way our teachers are trained today and what is expected of a teacher today are so vastly different to what was expected in those days, during my time. I find the pressure that we put on teachers today not only to step up as surrogate parents but also to be social workers, to handle difficult situations, to diagnose areas of disability—especially with autism and Asperger's—to be a huge impost on people who are paid as professionals to teach. My ultimate thing here in this speech is to beg everyone that we let teachers teach, and we must support them in that endeavour.
My wife is an early childhood teacher, and she has a Down syndrome child in her class. We have to be able to, from a local level, redefine success. What is success for a normal happy, healthy child is being able to get through that class and progress to year 1 and onward into a full-blown education. What my wife's Down syndrome child defines as success and what the parents define as success should be something that is done on a very local level. She has started school completely non-verbal and has finished at the school being able to say 'more hugs from Ms Linda'. It is a massive step. What Lola has been able to bring to my wife's school is a level of texture, a level of giving and a level of love that you just do not come across all that often. That comes down to what the principal does. It is about how empathetic he or she is towards a child, towards inclusion in our education system. We have massive opportunity here but we also have massive responsibility. As the member for Hasluck said previously, what we used to do was just bar these kids from classrooms and put them in special places where they would sink to the lowest common denominator—to the lowest level. We are better than that. But, when it comes to funding, we have to be able to divest the area where they can access funding to where the teacher needs it.
Quite often we see from schools and boards of educations and from state governments that the area that is required to be taken away all the time is for aides—the people who are needed the most to be able to attend to children who are non-toilet trained in grade 1. A teacher cannot do that. Supporting a teacher and getting that decision-making ability as close as possible to the teacher, as close as possible to their customer, is the best thing that we can do. We need to be able to have flexibility. At Hermit Park State School, Clayton Carnes, the principal, is a fantastic educator. He is able to shift resources from one classroom to another because his teachers work as a team and they are able to pull those resources and make sure the child needing the most resources gets the most assistance. That is what we have to do.
I agree with the Member for Lalor: there are many things that we have to be able to do in this space. This is one of the frustrations I have as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. When you cross over from federal to state boundaries and cloud those issues, it seems to me that we always leave enough room to blame each other for not doing enough. I always say that I am not a federalist, but a national response has its appeal. I would prefer a school-by-school response. I would prefer a school to be able to say, 'We welcome this. We are able to cope with it. And our school community demands that we are accepting of these things.' Change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. We have to do better than we are doing. I agree with everyone on this. This is a hugely important thing. We have to be inclusive. My son, who finished year 7, was Lola's year 7 buddy. He is a better person today because of what Lola gave him. We have to be more expansive. I thank the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the motion put forward by the member of Hotham. I commend her for the motion. I speak on behalf of the many special schools in the seat of Moreton and their students, their families, their aides, their allied health workers, their teachers and school leaders. I am always happy to talk about education. I was a school teacher for 11 years before becoming a lawyer. I appreciate and value the importance of education for every child, whatever challenges and opportunities they bring to the classroom door.
In government, Labor implemented the More Support for Students with Disabilities program. That program was designed as an interim arrangement while data was collected in collaboration with the states and territories to finalise the Gonski loading for students with disability. The Abbott government promised before the election to continue to fund Labor's Gonski school reforms for students with disability. We were seen to be on the same page when it came to Gonski. However, the coalition's first budget cut the More Support for Students with Disabilities program—a program investing $100 million per year to support students with disability—and we have seen the budgets put forward by the Treasurer that have confirmed the $30-billion cut to school funding, which will obviously impact on all students, particularly those with disability. This motion calls on the government to continue working with the states and territories to complete the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability program and implement the Gonski disability loading, reverse its cuts and restore the More Support for Students with Disabilities program. Children with disability deserve to be supported to the maximum extent in the classroom. The hardworking teachers in this sector deserve to be supported.
The schools in my electorate of Moreton deliver so much with so little, particularly in the area of meeting the diverse learning needs of students in classrooms, special education programs and early childhood development programs. Moreton receives great service from Calamvale Special School, Kuraby Special School, Sunnybank Special School, Tennyson Special School and Yeerongpilly Early Childhood Development Program, which is located on the grounds of Yeronga State School and is an Education Queensland facilitate for young children with hearing loss from a birth to pre-prep, just to name some of the institutions in Moreton. These are all specialist schools for children with disability. Some other schools in Moreton run programs within their school for children with disability, such as MacGregor State School, where the principal, Michael Ennis, has 1,293 students—it is a very big primary school—and 63 of those students have a disability. These students are fully included in the school and are a valued part of the school community.
The Sunnybank Special School, with principal Mr Darren Greenway, has 44 full-time students. Their early childhood development program has 11 children, who are aged from three to five years. This is a very small school with nine full-time teachers and four part-time teachers. As a very small school in a growing area, they are often overlooked in terms of funding.
The Kuraby Special School has 78 full-time students. The students range from prep to year 12. Principal Jenny Horchner-Wilson has 17 dedicated teachers at this school and I can tell you their Christmas pageants are one of the most heart-touching parts of my job.
The principal of the Calamvale Special School, Tom Byrne, recently brought some of his students to Canberra. I was privileged to spend some time with them, along with the member for Rankin because the school is in Rankin but right on the border. They were having a great time in Parliament House when I caught up with them. Calamvale is one of the largest special schools in my area: it has 130 students. All students have significant intellectual disabilities. Several students have multiple disabilities, including autism, cerebral palsy and hearing impairments. The students' ages range from five to 18. There are 22 classes at Calamvale with 80 teachers, including teacher aides.
All students at Calamvale Special School learn Auslan. Incredibly, their senior class of eight students conducts all of its lessons bilingually using both English and Auslan. The principal, Tom Byrne, explained that some autistic children cannot verbalise, so learning Auslan actually gives those children a way of communicating. It also allows those with hearing impairments to be included. This is a modern, progressive classroom which is thinking smart so that every student is given maximum advantage in life. It is overcoming these types of challenges that might make many teachers from 30 to 40 years ago weep but which makes these schools in my electorate so special.
Obviously, Labor values the hard work and dedication of teachers, parents, schools and carers across Australia. We see that by investing in education, particularly in schools that are underresourced—as per the Gonski model—we can actually boost productivity in the long run. So I commend again the member for Hotham for bringing forward this motion, and I commend it to the chamber.
I do not know what I have done to deserve this but, at the moment, I keep finding myself in a position where, through personal experience, I am drawn into talking about topics that are extremely close to my heart, and this is another one.
I commend the member for Hotham on the motion and agree with the principle that we need to do more. Why? Because at two years of age, my youngest daughter, Analise, was diagnosed with a bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. It was a severe hearing loss. We have no history of deafness in our family and, at that stage in our life with three kids under five and me at work, we thought our world had come to an end. Through Australian Hearing and the Catherine Sullivan early intervention centre, in Strathfield, we ultimately taught Analise to talk and, through holding Analise back a couple of years, we were in a position where we could enter Analise in mainstream schooling. It was then that we ran into the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children—the RIDBC—and their itinerant teacher program. Today Analise is a 13-year-old young lady—13 going on 35. She battles; it is a daily grind for her. I remember that when we started Analise at school there was no hearing loop in the common areas. We were blessed, through our financial position, by being able to install a hearing loop to give her more of a chance. But I acknowledge that I was in a unique position. The vast majority of her co-students and students throughout Australia are not in that position. Without that hearing loop, Analise cannot hear properly in a crowded environment. It was just essential for her to have: once again, it was about the needs of the individual student being catered for in an educational environment.
The member for Hasluck so poignantly put the case that parents do worry about the long-term success of their children. That is not relevant only in the field of disability or challenges—and I like calling them challenges rather than disability. Why? Because we are human. We know that, because we are human, we are not going to be here forever, and we hope that whatever challenges our children are faced with they may be enabled to not only strive through those but prosper, irrespective of whether or not we are here to support them. I do agree with the member for Hotham that the funding that was allocated through this stream is vitally important, and it was acknowledged in pre-election that we would deliver that in 2015. I have had discussions with the minister for education, and I am confident that he will deliver on that election commitment.
I want to raise a very specific point beyond my own family's experience. I have the honour of representing the second most culturally diverse seat in federal parliament. The member for Parramatta is my next-door neighbour; her seat is only just behind mine in the ranking order. I have a school at Chalmers Road. It is technically in Watson, a block out of my electorate, but I have a lot to do with that school. It is a school that deals with children afflicted with all ranges of disabilities. In a multicultural space where parents have moved to Australia as a new home, English is a challenge and they are unaware of the services that are provided for both early intervention and diagnosis before early intervention, it is even more important that we come up with pathways that are readily available and easily accessible so that at any stage suspicion can turn into diagnosis and intervention and set that potential student on a path that will allow them to thrive through the challenge that God has presented them and their family with. It is my great hope that—not only with the funding we are talking about today but over time as technology improves and as our budget position improves—there is more that we can do in this space. Why? Because I quite frankly think that there is never enough you can do. I thank the member for Hotham for her motion, and have welcomed the chance to talk to it today.
Debate adjourned.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am particularly pleased, as you would be if you were in my position, to speak on this motion by the member for Ford. I congratulate and commend him for the motion. I look at our commitment in the government to small business, and I compare and contrast that to what I saw in six years of Labour, as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, sitting on the opposition benches. It was a dreadful time. I am a small businessperson myself. There are over 12,000 in my electorate. I saw Labor's small business record, and it was basically a demonstration of how to consign the small business sector to irrelevance when in government. I watched a parade of six ministers in six years. No wonder 485,000 jobs were lost in small business after Labor's six years and six small business ministers.
In contrast, we have a coalition government that is absolutely committed to small business. The member for Dunkley, the small business minister, was absolutely passionate and committed in his time as a shadow minister and is now, in his time as minister, a very passionate, committed, enthusiastic Minister for Small Business. To think that we have placed small business in cabinet—every time there is a decision made in this government, small business is at the table. That shows a really genuine commitment to small business. It is a very practical demonstration to small business. When I look back to those six years, it was like a revolving door of ministers, and that in itself gave a very clear, dreadful message to small business that they were not relevant to Labor. Well, they have seen the opposite under this government.
There are two million actively trading small businesses in Australia—many in my electorate and many in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker—and that is why we took 20 really strong policy ideas to the 2013 election. We knew how important small business is, and we see in the 2015-16 budget the largest jobs and small business package in the nation's history—a practical demonstration of our commitment. There is 5.5 billion in new incentives to help small businesses start to grow, to thrive, and to help create further jobs. The small business company tax cut is the lowest rate in almost 50 years. The immediate tax deduction for small business assets purchased, up to the value of $20,000, means a lot if you are small business person. Plus there was the five per cent tax discount for unincorporated businesses.
Small business is critical in my part of the world. In small communities they are absolutely critical. The one thing that they are great at, besides providing the core services in small communities where nobody else is, is often providing a young person with their first job and an older person with their last job. Besides the fact that they employ nearly half of the Australian working population—with that first job and that last job—their presence in small communities is just extraordinary. My local Harvey Bulls footy club won their first final in the Southwest Football League over the weekend. But let me tell you that they could not survive without the support of the small businesses which are in our community and which sponsor them, as do a whole range of other community service organisations, such as volunteer emergency services. They are the small businesses which, in small communities, right around Australia are providing that level of support. That is why the motion, moved by the member for Forde, is so important and that is why our commitment to small business is what it is, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like you, I am proud of our record and commitment to small business.
When you look at other practical matters that the government have engaged in for small business, such as capital gains tax relief, the ability for start-ups to immediately deduct professional expenses when they start a business, expanding the tax concessions for employee share schemes, you will see that there is a whole raft of initiatives that in practical terms demonstrate our very genuine commitment to small business.
I want to go back to the member for Dunkley, the Minister the Small Business. He is absolutely dedicated to the small business sector. When you are in a gathering of small business people and the minister is there, there is no doubt that the people in the room have absolute confidence in him and the government, not only in the way that he delivers but also in the way we have demonstrated very clearly. And this motion by the member for Forde is another practical example of that commitment for small business.
I rise today to pledge my support for small businesses right across this country. Members know of my love for small business. I ran my own small business—my own microbusiness—for 10 years before entering politics. And members know of my love of Canberra small businesses, which I meet with regularly.
My love for small business is one reason why I fought so strongly against the government's budget last year, because I knew the damage it would do to the Canberra business community. I met with businesses during my business walk-arounds in Fyshwick, Phillip, Woden, Tuggeranong and Manuka. I chatted to the barber in Tuggeranong whose business is just behind my electorate office and whose business was on the brink of collapse. The main reason these businesses were doing it so tough was the Abbott government's cuts to public sector jobs.
We have lost more than 8,500 public servants from Canberra since the Abbott government came to office. And those who were lucky enough to hold on to their jobs are living and were living then in constant fear of losing them. What happened last year? Canberrans closed their wallets completely after the budget and, as a result, Canberra's businesses suffered. As a result, we saw building approvals in the ACT drop. Our GDP and retail growth was lagging behind the rest of the country and business confidence was the lowest in the country. So I wholeheartedly refute the part of this motion that claims the government 'has started to arrest the decline in the small business environment overseen by the previous Labor government'.
This government is the cause of the decline in small business activity in my electorate. And since the Abbott government handed down its Growing Jobs and Small Business package in this year's budget, our economy still has not recovered. On a national level, gross domestic product grew just 0.2 per cent in the three quarters to the end of June, compared with 0.9 per cent in the first quarter. On a local level, the September figures from the ACT Treasury show our housing and construction industry is still suffering with the number of new building commencements down more than 14 per cent from March. The ACT's tourism sector is also struggling, with our room occupancy rate also lower than it was in June. Our population growth has halved since late 2012.
Our employment figures continue to dive, with unemployment also in the red. It is not just unemployment in the ACT that is rising. Australia's unemployment rate reached 6.3 per cent in July. The truth is it would take years for our economy to recover from these Public Service job cuts, just as it did in 1996 under the last coalition government. It took five years for Canberra to recover from the Howard government's slash and burn to 15,000 public service jobs here in Canberra and 30,000 jobs nationally. That saw businesses close down, business bankruptcies go up, non-business bankruptcies go up, local shops close down, people leave town and house prices plummet. That is what the coalition did to this city—the nation's capital—in 1996, when it got rid of 15,000 public servants. You cannot suck 15,000 jobs out of an economy without it having an enormous impact not just on small businesses but also on housing prices and population growth. As I said, what happened to Canberra? It sent us into an economic slump for five years. The latest round of the coalition government's cuts to the Public Service is also having an enormous impact on our economy, as I have just outlined.
I am not going to stand here and commend the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business on their management of the economy as those opposite have done. I am not going to commend them after they have doubled the deficit to more than $35 billion. I am certainly not going to commend them for sacking 8½ thousand public servants in Canberra alone. Their track record on small business in this town is not one to be proud of. If they actually spoke to their ACT senator and got his thoughts on it, they would get that feedback from him. It is not a record to be proud of. As I said, you cannot take 15,000 jobs out of an economy without it having an enormous impact on small business—as happened in 1996—and you certainly cannot take 8½ thousand Public Service jobs out of an economy, as we have seen over the last two years, and expect it not to have an impact on small business. It has had an enormously detrimental effect on small business.
In fact, the track record of the coalition in Canberra is not one to be proud of, full stop. They have a complete disdain and contempt for Canberra, a complete disdain and contempt for public servants and a complete disdain and contempt for Canberra small businesses. I am thinking here about the barber at Tuggeranong. Their empty words about how wonderful the government is just do not cut it. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to talk about small business, which, of course, is at the heart of a more prosperous future for my home state of Tasmania and our country. There is no doubt that the government's 2015 budget was a historic game changer when it comes to helping hardworking small business men and women. In our small business package we committed $5.5 billion, recognising that the almost 800,000 Australian small businesses are in the vanguard of the Abbott government's economic recovery strategy. Many of the 71,700 small businesses in Tasmania have already benefited from this package.
We see corporate tax rates, for example, for small business dropping from 30 per cent to 28½ per cent. That means that 96 per cent of all Australian businesses can benefit from reduced taxes and from bringing forward their investment through the lowest corporate tax rates in 50 years. Accelerated depreciation arrangements, for example, enable an immediate tax deduction on any asset they buy costing up to $20,000. So many small business owners have already taken advantage of these measures, helping to optimise their cash flow and create new local jobs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, contrary to some of the material we have heard from those opposite, revealed on 29 June that the number of jobs in small business has increased by 146,000 under the Abbott government. Compare that to the almost half a million jobs lost in small business under Labor and Labor-Green governments.
Local examples of business winners from this small business package are plentiful. Just over a week ago, I was enjoying a refreshing beverage with the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in the Metz cafe bar in Launceston—an excellent establishment. If I recall correctly, we were enjoying a Wizard Smith, a wonderful local brew made by Boag's Brewery. I could digress and more fully describe this magnificent pale ale, but I would be sailing very close to the wind on standing order 76, so I will not do that.
We were approached by the proprietor of that establishment, a man called Jason Mercer. He and a number of others wanted to have a photo taken with the Treasurer, and he wanted to tell us about his personal benefits under the small business package that we have delivered. He wanted to say how much he valued the instant asset write-off provisions. He had bought a new till system, computer equipment and other items. Jason is one of the many small business owners in Bass who have benefited from the Abbott government's small business package. My Boags beverage had never tasted sweeter than it did as I realised that a strategic economic policy decision in Canberra had had such a beneficial effect at the tactical coalface of small business in my electorate of Bass. So when we say that the coalition is the best friend that small business has ever had, it is because we act to demonstrate that fact. Minister Billson has done an exceptional job in the small business portfolio delivering these great benefits.
Isn't it comforting to have had some stability in the small business sector? The audacity of the member of Canberra in talking about Labor's record with small business when they had six small business ministers in six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government—six of them. Not only did that revolving door fail to help small business but also the Labor-Greens government added lead to their saddlebags. They imposed a carbon tax that made small business electricity costs higher. Over 20,000 new or amended regulations were introduced, wrapping our small businesses in an endless litany of red tape. Stop/start policy changes cost small business millions in compliance costs. I mention here in particular the disastrous fuel watch policy Labour introduced that would have cost petrol stations—many of which are small businesses—$4,000 a year in compliance costs.
Just when small business is looking to benefit from the wonderful trifecta of free-trade deals negotiated under the Abbott government, Labor threatens once again to derail those efforts with a xenophobic CFMEU campaign. Instead of backing the hardworking businessmen and women of our country, they instead back corrupt, militant unions like the CFMEU. They engage in the most false, xenophobic and irresponsible campaign in recent memory. They demonise China, our biggest trading partner, when even wiser heads like Bob Hawke, Simon Crean, Bob Carr—even most of the Labor premiers—say, 'Don't be so stupid as to wreck the China free trade deal, which is great for our economy and great for local jobs.' But it should not surprise us that the opposition leader ignores such good advice. He has got form. Standing at that union rally in Adelaide last September—TheAustralian said it was an inexcusable performance that stank of racist and protectionist rhetoric.
I want to use this opportunity to draw the government's attention as strongly as I can to the current problems facing the taxi industry and the many self-employed small businesses that are part of it. State and federal governments have failed to give taxi drivers a level playing field against unfair competition from Uber. The fact that this company facilitates a network of small businesses operating outside Australian laws has presented significant challenges to regulators at both the state and federal levels, according to Mr David Samuel, the CEO of the Victorian Taxi Association. Uber takes 20 per cent of every trip, and questions remain as to whether they are compliant with Australian taxation laws. This is a company valued at $5 billion, facilitating trips for profit on behalf of its 'partners' in Australia which they claim should be treated differently to other commercial passenger vehicle service providers. Taxi drivers are not afforded a turnover threshold, but collect and pay GST from the first dollar through the fare box. This fits into a bigger picture of the offshoring of profits derived from business in Australia to avoid contributing their fair share to our economy.
Uber, which began in San Francisco in 2009, now operates in more than 50 countries, with 300,000-plus driver partners in the US alone. In Australia it is moving towards 20,000 driver partners. The difference between Uber and many of its competitors is that most of Uber's competitors operate legally within the legal confines of the countries they are in. Uber, on the other hand, is paying for its drivers to ignore local laws. In Australia it is contesting decisions across state and federal jurisdictions. In Queensland driver partners have been hit with more than $1.7 million in fines for providing unlicensed taxi services. Despite it being Uber practice around the world to pay drivers' fines, the fines in Queensland are being disputed and have not yet been paid.
As reported in The Conversation in August:
Uber seems to have made a strategic decision to take the legal hits associated with flouting local regulations, with the view that this is unlikely to land a knockout blow.
… … …
Uber also wants to manipulate regulation that extends well beyond labour law, in order to boost its competitive advantage.
The Conversation outlines:
Uber is in a global fight to win a regulatory environment favourable to its business model. This fight largely relies on ambiguity on how Uber should be defined as a company. Uber steadfastly denies any suggestion that it is a service provider, insisting instead that it's a "technology company" … "seamlessly connecting riders to drivers".
Laws and regulations must address the emergence of what is called the 'electronic hail'. The emergence of this type of product has meant that the distinction between hail and pre-booked work has been significantly blurred. The legislation needs to embrace and define the term 'electronic hail', as distinct from a pre-booking or a street hail or a rank hail. Simply imposing hire car regulations upon ride-hail type services is not sufficient. Hire car regulations differ from taxis on the grounds that hire car companies accept only pre-booked services for a different market to taxis and thus have the ability to pre-plan journeys. This is not the case with an electronic hail. Any regulation should be based on the need to address a market failure and to ensure community, passenger and driver safety. Because the model is a hybrid, regulations and hire car regulation need to apply to it. This definition of the product also provides clear justification as to why the price these services charge should be regulated by a maximum fare. Customers are not able to make an informed choice because of the immediacy of the booking. Furthermore, paying more will not necessarily see the service delivered in a more timely fashion, because during periods of high demand the wait times are constrained by supply across all services. Employing surge pricing in periods of high demand is an abuse of market power and is price gouging because the product the customer receives does not alter in either quality or timeliness, despite them being asked to pay more.
As the taxi association has said on numerous occasions, if fair regulation were to be removed, the biggest loser would be the consumer burdened with higher prices. The requirement in relation to ride hailing has to enable taxis to be allowed to compete. Taxi drivers deserve better than the unfair competition and insecure future to which they are subject. I urge both federal and state governments in their examination of this to make sure that the many small businesses who have invested very large sums of money in relation to taxis have an opportunity to have a secure future. They are entitled to this.
I thank the member for Forde for bringing this motion to the House. I join with my colleagues on this side of the House today on the second anniversary of the best thing to happen for small business—the election of the Abbott coalition government. We join today to acknowledge the small business owners of Australia.
Owning and operating a small business is not an easy task, and on this side of the House we represent a government doing everything possible to assist the small business sector. Those opposite, unfortunately, left a tragic legacy on Australian small business. During the six years of the previous Labor government, around 519,000 jobs were lost in small business. This meant that around 1,544 jobs were lost each week. In contrast, in the two years since this government was elected, 335,000 jobs have been created. Labor promised a one-in, one-out approach to regulation, but they introduced more than 21,000 new and amended regulations and only repealed a fraction of this number. Under the current government to date, we have delivered a total deregulatory saving of $2.45 billion.
As to whom to acknowledge for this total contempt for small business, it is difficult as the previous Labor government had six different small business ministers, five of those within a 15-month period. This is an indication of how little commitment Labor had to this sector. When the Howard government left office, with regard to government regulation Australia ranked 68th on the Global Competitiveness Index. After six years of Labor, Australian business was so tangled up in red tape that we slid down the ladder to 128th place. This meant that 127 countries had less of a regulatory impost and government red-tape burden than Australia.
This kind of environment was disastrous for the Australian economy and only with the economic management of the Abbott coalition government has the situation improved. Part of the 2015-16 budget was the delivery of the largest small business package in the nation's history, worth $5.5 billion. This package builds on what we have already achieved for small business and will assist small businesses to invest more, grow more, and employ more.
The package includes tax cuts for all Australian small businesses to encourage investment and growth. These tax cuts include a 1.5 per cent company tax rate cut for incorporated small business, resulting in the lowest company tax rate since 1967. Further tax relief is provided in the package for unincorporated small businesses, by way of a five per cent tax cut. Providing incorporated small businesses with a reduced rate of company tax will improve small business cash flow. It will also promote growth and help small business compete more effectively with larger businesses and create jobs. It is estimated that up to 780,000 companies could potentially benefit from this measure.
The raising of the threshold at which small businesses can immediately deduct business assists is another initiative within the Growing Jobs and Small Business package. The threshold previously stood at $1,000. However, as of 12 May 2015 assets worth up to $20,000 can be immediately deducted.
I reflected earlier on the damage done to the small business economy in Australia by the multitude of former Labor small business members, but it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed for making unfounded announcements to small businesses in his budget reply speech. The most deplorable point is that his announcements ignored the two-thirds of small businesses which are not structured as companies.
Ninety-six per cent of all Australian businesses are classed as small businesses employing over 4½ million people and producing over $330 billion of our nation's economic output per year. There is no doubt small business is at the forefront of Australian jobs and growth, and the coalition is delivering for small businesses now and into the future.
Over 8,000 small businesses are based in the Dobell electorate, with this sector collectively our largest employer. Recently I had the opportunity to meet with small business owners Brendan and Nancy Small, owner-operators of family business SpotGo. Businesses like SpotGo have never had support from the federal government to the extent they are now. They are now receiving assistance. They are even exploring exporting opportunities into China, under the China FTA.
Unlike the previous Labor government, which neglected small business, this government is providing unprecedented opportunity. I commend the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business, as well as paying tribute to the small business owners of Dobell and thank them for their contribution to the Dobell economy.
If only the words spoken by members opposite were true. If only this was a government for small business. If only the policies it introduced would make the difference that it claims to have made. But let us look at the facts. Business confidences has been low since this government was elected. The only time it has been lower than under this government in the last 20 years was in the worst year of the global financial crisis. Other than that, business confidence is at some of its lowest levels that we have seen for a long time. Growth is down, capex is down, terms of trade are at appalling levels, debt and deficit have doubled, wages growth is down and confidence, as I said, has largely flatlined. Unemployment is up and the number of job hours that are actually worked and paid for is down. That is something that this government does not talk about much.
They talk about the number of people looking for work going up and it is. That is not surprising when you cut their family payments. It is not surprising when you cut family payments that so many woman are returning to the workforce—and most of the jobs created were actually part-time jobs for women. There has been a loss of full-time jobs, a loss of hours worked in total, but an increase in the number of women returning to the workforce.
But I want to return to small business. There is no doubt that if Australia wants to prosper in this rapidly changing world where supply chains are fragmented and businesses are forming relationships all around the world and finding profound new ways to do business it will be the small businesses of Australia that determine whether we succeed in that world. It will be the small businesses of Australia, not the big ones, that are the first ones to break the rules and find new ways of working, to move forward through those fragmented supply chains and to find a place for themselves in the world.
But what we have seen from this government is the destruction of the very economic structures that support the development of those businesses and those supply chains. We have seen the decimation of the car industry and, with that, the hundreds of thousands of people working in small businesses all around the country who are in these complex and highly skilled fragmented supply chains in this country. When you wipe out the Australian car manufacturing industry you also make it incredibly difficult for Australia to retain the skills that it will need for these small businesses to participate in this fragmented global supply chain. You effectively take them out of action at the very time when they should be leading the Australian charge to export into those supply chains.
Look at renewable energy: there has been an 80 per cent reduction in investment in renewable energy, mainly by small companies and small businesses in the renewable sector. In Parramatta we had 14 solar installers two years ago and now we have one. That is 13 businesses that were in a growth sector and that should actually be working on the future industries of Australia that are gone. They are gone because of this government.
Look what the government did in the first budget to anything to do with innovation. They closed down Commercialisation Australia, the Innovation and Investment Fund, and Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They were their targets—innovation was their target in that first budget. Scrapping the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which they are still struggling to do but they are weakening it day by day. Enterprise Connect has also gone. A program, acknowledged by industry to be one of the most successful in our history, has gone—gone! Anything that was about innovation, anything that was about the future and anything that would support Australian business and skills as we move forward in this incredibly competitive world has gone. What do we get instead? What is the signature? What is the only thing that they have to be proud of? It is the reintroduction of an instant tax write-off, which they abolished a year earlier. They abolished the instant tax write-off, which was a Labor policy, and the loss carry-back scheme and the accelerated vehicle depreciation when they first got elected because it was bad policy. Then, a year and a half later, they renounce it, albeit larger, but only for two years and claim that it was a great boon. It was a boon when it was there before. It was a good policy when they scrapped it. So the one thing they can claim is to reinstate a policy that they scrapped.
Everything else that the government do—everything—is about shutting down Australia's future. It is about reducing our skills and reducing the capacity of our small businesses to take on the world and become part of these massive international fragmented global supply chains. It is as though they belong in the last century and, unfortunately, they are taking us back there with them.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 7 September 2015 marks one year to go until the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games;
(b) the Paralympic Games will bring over 11 days of competition, with more than 4,350 athletes from 178 nations expected to participate in 528 medal events across 22 sports;
(c) the sports of Para-canoe and Para-triathlon will appear on the Paralympic program for the first time;
(d) the Australian Paralympic Committee is currently preparing to send an Australian team of more than 170 athletes from every Australian state and territory to compete in up to 15 sports at the Paralympic Games;
(e) the team will be led by Chef de Mission Kate McLoughlin, who will become the first woman to lead an Australian team at the Paralympic Games;
(f) Australia has a proud history of success at the Paralympic Games and has competed at every one since the first in Rome in 1960, finishing in the top five at every summer Paralympic Games since the Barcelona Games in 1992; and
(g) the Australian Paralympic Team is one of Australia's most important sporting teams, helping shape community attitudes towards disability and assisting Australians with a disability to participate in sport to the level of their choice;
(2) congratulates:
(a) the Australian Paralympic Committee and relevant national sporting organisations on their preparation for the Paralympic Games so far; and
(b) all potential Australian team members for their dedication to their chosen Paralympic sport; and
(3) calls on all Members of Parliament to support the Australian Paralympic Team in its preparations for the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games.
On 29 July 1948, a brilliant sunny day, the games of the 14th Olympiad were opened by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, in London. They were the first Olympics in 12 years, with the 1940 Helsinki games and the 1944 London games cancelled because of World War II. Great attention was drawn to the games. A new world was being celebrated, events were being broadcast on television for the first time, and it was a sign of normality returning to the world, following the disruptions caused during the war. While these games were significant, an event held some 42 miles away in parallel to the opening ceremony, holds more significance to the motion before us today. In a small town, Stoke Mandeville, in Buckinghamshire, 16 paralysed service men and women were competing in the Stoke Mandeville games for men and women.
The games were the brainchild of neurologist Sir Ludwig Guttmann, head of the National Spinal Injuries Centre, a treatment centre for injured World War II servicemen. Sir Ludwig had come up with the revolutionary idea of using sport as a key part of rehabilitation for spinal injuries, and people under his care were encouraged to try wheelchair polo, basketball, and archery. Until this point, people with spinal cord injuries often died within a year of sustaining those injuries, having been given no hope of returning to their previous life. Sir Ludwig's treatment methods and the games were a great success, and the games were held at Stoke Mandeville again in future years. With competitors from the Netherlands joining in the Stoke Mandeville games in 1952, an international competition was born. That was the precursor to the modern 'Parallel Olympics', or Paralympics as we now call it, which were held for the first time in Rome in 1960. Twelve Australian athletes competed in those inaugural 1960 games, bringing home a total of 10 medals, and Australia has been represented at every Paralympic Games since.
Today marks one year to go until the 15th edition of the Paralympics, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Rio games will see some 4,350 athletes with disability from 178 nations right across the globe competing over 11 days, with an Australian team of more than 170 athletes competing in some 15 sports. The Australian team will be led by chef de mission Kate McLoughlin, who will be the first woman to lead an Australian team at the Paralympic Games. This is a really significant milestone for Australian women in sport too. It will follow closely the first woman to lead an Australian Olympic team, with former pentathlete Kitty Chiller leading the Australian team into the stadium at the Rio Olympics. At the Rio Paralympics we will see outstanding Australian athletes on the world sporting stage—athletes like the multiple Paralympic gold medallist and world record sprinter Evan O'Hanlon, who will take to the athletics track. Today in Rio, to celebrate one year to go, Evan competes in a demonstration race to find the world's fastest para-athlete. We will also see 2014 Young Australian of the Year swimmer Jacqueline Freney attempt to replicate her success at the London Paralympics, when she brought home a record eight gold medals. And we will see a number of wheelchair teams and individuals striving to keep Australia's record of wheelchair sporting success at the Paralympics alive.
Our Paralympians are extraordinary athletes and they play an important role not only in our sporting community but also in our national psyche. I encourage all members in this place to embrace the spirit of the Paralympic Games, and call on them to support the Australian Paralympic team in its preparations for Rio 2016. Rio is a long way from Stoke Mandeville, and the world is a very different place now than in 1948, but the original intention of Sir Ludwig Guttmann lives on in the modern Paralympic movement.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I thank the member for Newcastle for moving this motion, a motion that I am sure will enjoy the support of all members of this House. It seems like only yesterday that we were farewelling athletes about to head to London for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic games. Back then, I attended the Australian Paralympic team's launch ceremony at Parliament House. There I had the opportunity to meet young stars such as University of Queensland alumnus Bridie Kean. Bridie was captain of the women's wheelchair basketball team, the Gliders. I also met Dylan Alcott, a member of the men's wheelchair basketball team, the Rollers. Both teams went on to represent Australia with distinction in London and both won silver medals. In total, 161 Australian athletes went to London as part of the Australian Paralympic team. Between them, they achieved outstanding success, resulting in 85 medals, including 32 gold medals. This was the biggest gold medal success since the 2000 Sydney Olympics and was strong enough to place Australia fifth on the overall medal tally.
Among the team were some standout performances, particularly in the pool. Swimmer Matthew Cowdrey cemented his status as an Australian sporting legend by picking up another eight medals, including five gold medals. That took his overall medal tally to 13 gold medals-the most of any Paralympian in Australian history. Another swimmer, Ellie Cole, won four gold medals and two bronze medals. At the age of 13, swimmer Maddison Elliott became the youngest ever Australian gold medallist.
But arguably the star of the games was Brisbane-born swimmer Jacqueline Freney. Jacqueline won an outstanding eight gold medals, the most ever won by an Australian at a single Olympics. This included gold medals in six individual events: 100 metres backstroke, 50 metres butterfly, 200 metres individual medley, 100 metres freestyle, 50 metres freestyle and 400 metres freestyle. She was also part of the successful four by 100 metres women's freestyle and four by 100 metres medley relay teams.
In 2012 a total of 18 Queenslanders participated in their first Paralympics, and no doubt Rio 2016 will present an opportunity for more Queenslanders to participate for the first time. One such participant may well be 26-year-old paracanoeist Curtis McGrath. Every athlete has a story to tell about how they got to where they are, but few stories are as compelling as that of Curtis McGrath. In August 2012, the same month as the 2012 Paralympics opened in London, Sapper Curtis McGrath was a combat engineer with the Army's 6th Engineer Support Regiment based in Brisbane. Sapper McGrath was serving in Oruzgan province, leading a team, when he inadvertently stood on an improvised explosive device, or IED. Despite extensive injuries to his legs, he miraculously survived, but the injuries rendered him a double leg amputee.
Curtis's Paralympic ambition began that day. He later shared with the Gold Coast Bulletin newspaper that even as he was being stretchered from the site of the blast he was telling his colleagues that he would become a Paralympian one day. After months of rehabilitation, I was honoured to be present when he rejoined his mates at the welcome home parade at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera. He then dedicated himself to his chosen sport of paracanoeing, which will appear for the first time at the 2016 Paralympics in Rio de Janeiro. Having won gold medals in his class at the 2014 and 2015 world championships, Curtis stands a good chance of making the team. To raise money to make it to Rio next year, he is being supported by Mates4Mates, a charity dedicated to the rehabilitation of current and ex-serving ADF members who have suffered physical or psychological wounds. Mates4Mates have set up a fundraising page to help Curtis fulfil his Paralympic dream, and have raised more than $8,000 so far in aid of his cause.
The motion makes note of Chef de Mission Kate McLoughlin, who will become the first woman to lead an Australian team at a summer Paralympic Games. It is hoped that she will lead a 170-strong team to the Rio Paralympics, which would be the largest team since the Paralympics were held on home soil in Australia back in 2000. Members of the Australian Paralympic team are tremendous role models for all Australians. As mainly amateur athletes, they represent the original Olympic ideals and compete for glory and for their country, their team and themselves without the promise of extensive financial reward. I join with the member for Newcastle and the rest of this House in wishing all aspiring Paralympians the very best as they make their final preparations for Rio next year.
It is a pleasure to speak on this motion, a motion that notes a range of things, including:
(a) 7 September 2015 marks one year to go until the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games—
a very important event for the world and for Australia. Over 11 days of competition, there will be nearly 4,500 athletes from 178 nations competing in about 528 medal events across 22 sports. The sports of paracanoeing and paratriathlon will appear on the Paralympic program for the first time as well, which is great news for those wanting to compete in those events.
The Australian Paralympic Committee have been working very hard. They are preparing a very large team of around 170 athletes from every state and territory, who will be competing in up to 15 sports at the Rio games. Also, for the first time a woman will be leading our mission there. Chef de Mission, Kate McLoughlin, will be leading the Australian team. Australia obviously has a very proud history of success at the Paralympic Games, and we have competed in every one since the first in Rome in 1960—finishing in the top 5 at every summer Paralympic Games since Barcelona in 1992.
I congratulate the Paralympic Committee and the relevant national sporting organisations on their preparations for the Games so far and the potential Australian team members for their dedication to their chosen Paralympic sport. Very importantly, all members of parliament are called on to support the Australian Paralympic team in their preparation for Rio and, in that spirit, we call on all Australians to support the Games as well.
It is a pleasure to support my colleague the member for Newcastle in this very good motion, because Australia is a very proud sporting nation and has had many sporting successes that have shaped our identity, from our early contributions and conflicts overseas to the local match with kids in our neighbours. Not just as a nation but as regions, towns and cities, we are all very proud of our sporting achievements and participation. Newcastle is, of course, one of those renowned Australian sporting towns, and I am sure the member would attest to the impact that sport has on her city. It would probably be fair to say that the mood in the city on a Monday morning goes up and down and varies depending on how the Newcastle Knights have played over the weekend, as is the case in Brisbane and Ipswich. I am very proud to say that our Broncos are about to start yet another finals campaign and we wish them well.
I am also very happy to speak on this motion about Paralympic sport more generally because it gives me an opportunity to remind members, the House and all Australians that in just one year's time we will be seeing some of the best sporting events in world, with some of the finest athletes in the world and with some of the best performances in the world. If we look back at the history of the Paralympic competition we can see that the origins, when they were not known as the Paralympics, are in the competitions that were held for service veterans who had suffered spinal cord injuries during World War II. The games for these veterans were held at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital in England and were known as the Stoke Mandeville Games. First Summer Paralympics were held in Rome in 1960 and the first Winter Paralympics in Toronto in 1976—a great history throughout that period.
I mentioned earlier Australia's proud history as a sporting nation and, indeed, it can be argued that in no field of sport has Australian enjoyed more consistent excellence of achievement than in Paralympic sport. Australian athletes have consistently excelled at the Summer Paralympics. Australia has participated in all the Games since and has done an excellent job in all of them. In the Sydney 2000 Games, Australia topped the medal tally with 149 medals: 63 gold, 39 silver and 47 bronze. Australia also demonstrated an enormous record of winning medals and participation.
I had the great privilege on Saturday night to be at the Australian Swimming Awards in Brisbane, representing the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. I was also there to witness firsthand the great job that our Olympic and Paralympic swimming participants have done and the great comradery and competitiveness they enjoy across all of those sports. It was a great honour to be there to see a focus on their ability, their friendship and their comradery, and the competitive spirit that lives within Australian sport. I wish them well and I know that all Australians will be supporting our Paralympic champions as they go to Rio in 2016.
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That this House:
(1) commends the fantastic work that the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Government have done to secure the monumental Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China, Australia's largest trading partner;
(2) acknowledges that the China-Australia FTA provides significant advantages for Australian businesses, particularly by:
(a)removing tariffs on key agricultural exports such as beef, dairy, lamb and horticulture;
(b) providing certainty for the resource and energy sector by locking in zero tariffs on major exports such as iron ore, crude petroleum oils and liquefied natural gas; and
(c)securing new or improved market access for service providers in areas such as banking, insurance, hospitality, health and travel;
(3) recognises the opportunities that this agreement presents for Australian businesses to grow and create new jobs, providing increased economic prosperity for all Australians; and
(4) condemns the union movement's reckless misinformation campaign, backed by Labor, for jeopardising this agreement and the opportunity that it presents to create new jobs for Australian workers.
I would like to start with a fact. Australian exports to China were worth $107.5 billion in 2013-14. Under the new agreement, 95 per cent of Australian goods exported to China will be tariff-free, which means there will be good opportunities for resources, agriculture, manufacturing, knowledge and service industries.
It is always hard to deal with people who tell deliberate lies, as is the case with this China free-trade agreement. We have unions and their Labor members of parliament in electorates like mine telling deliberate lies. Another example of this deliberate campaign of lies comes from an MUA member posting on a Facebook site Darwin and Surrounds—Buy, Swap and Sell, organising a rally and telling my constituents that I am responsible for selling TIO. Not true. They say I am responsible for sacking teachers and nurses—also not true! As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal government does not employ teachers or nurses. The unions are misinformed and should stop telling lies. Here in this room we are bound by standing orders, particularly regarding the language that we use. We must tell the truth and there are certain words we cannot use to describe our opponents, even if they are true.
Out there on the streets of my electorate where the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is distributing pamphlets in the letterboxes of Darwin and Palmerston residents, where Labor politicians and their staff are going on radio and TV, where the Maritime Union of Australia is going door to door telling people that hordes of Chinese workers are about to arrive and take their jobs, they do not appear to be bound by conventions or indeed the truth. That is certainly evident by their behaviour on this campaign.
We are used to seeing certain degrees of conflict in political dealings. Those on that side of the chamber will often have a different opinion to us on this side; it is called an adversarial process. Through debate and the exchanging of ideas we arrive at an outcome that should be in the best interests for all Australians. But never before in the two terms that I have served in this place, or during my time in local government, have I ever seen one side resort to such hysteria as that seen from the Labor Party and the union campaign about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Make no mistake: this is not about unions helping workers; this is about the union movement as the puppet master, with the shadow frontbench and their members as the puppets.
Similar agreements are already in place with Korea, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the United States, Chile and Indonesia. I do not ever remember the Maritime Union going door to door in Darwin warning about boat loads of Chilean electricians stealing Australian jobs. I do not recall the CFMEU letterboxing in Palmerston about the dangers of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Did Labor even vote against any of these? No, they did not. There was bipartisan support and Labor voted for these agreements. Labor has supported all the free trade agreements which have gone through in recent times. Why are they opposing this one? God only knows.
Some of the Labor luminaries have said some interesting things about this agreement. We have Bob Hawke, who said:
I am all in favour of it …The party must not go backwards on this issue … Talk of opposing it is just absolutely against Australia’s best interests.
Victorian Labor Premier said:
The Chinese free trade agreement is good news for Victorian jobs and I support it …
The Labor Premier of South Australia endorses it, former Labor minister Simon Crean endorses it and Martin Ferguson endorses it. Even Bob Carr has publicly said, 'The Labor Party is overblowing this campaign.' Could it be that, once again, unions are not acting to protect workers but protecting their allies in the Labor Party? Could it be a coincidence that anyone whose preselection or election funding does not depend on one or more of the militant trade unions is endorsing this legislation? I will leave that to the public to decide. But I have got to tell you: even a Northern Territory Labor opposition member has said that he supports this agreement. It is good for Territorians and Senator Peris should come out and say that she supports it and so should her staff.
I would like a seconder for the motion.
A government member: I second the motion.
I completely disagree with so much of what is in this motion. In fact, I rise to condemn the government for negotiating a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement that removes safeguards that would protect Australian jobs. There is a reason why Labor has supported most other free trade agreements but not this agreement. Other agreements that came before this parliament and the Australian people contained safeguards that protected Australian jobs. This agreement fails, and this government and government backbenchers have their heads in the sand when it comes to this agreement.
Let us look at the letter that was sent by Andrew Robb, the minister, on 17 June 2015. It states clearly in the letter that he sent to his counterpart: 'Australia will remove the requirement for mandatory skill assessments for the following 10 occupations on the date of entry into force of the agreement.' It lists these 10 occupations: automotive electrician, cabinet-maker, carpenter, carpenter and joiner, diesel motor mechanic, electrician, electrician special class, joiner, motor mechanic and motorcycle mechanic. The minister's own letter states very clearly that, on ratification of this agreement, the mandatory skill assessment for these occupations will cease to be required. The letter goes on to state that the remaining occupations will be reviewed within two years of the agreement, aiming to further reduce the number of occupations requiring this mandatory skill assessment.
This is a dodgy agreement and it is bad for Australian workers. It does what no other agreement has done in the past and removes safeguards ensuring, firstly, locals get job opportunities first and, secondly, that people coming to work here meet the mandatory skill assessments. I am sure China is very proud of what it has been able to negotiate. It is a country that relies on migration of workers who send pay and remittance back to the country. It is something that China has done for centuries and centuries, yet we are the first country to agree to forgo our own labour market testing and our own labour market safeguards that ensure that Australians get offered job opportunities first.
There are other issues with this China free trade agreement that the government backbenchers are choosing to ignore. With this agreement, for the first time ever the government is seeking to enable semi-skilled professions and workers to come in under the 457 visa category. Semi-skilled—so we are not talking about a skilled migration temporary work visa program now; it is being extended in this agreement to semi-skilled workers. Within semi-skilled professions, we are talking about concreters, scaffolders, truck drivers and even office workers. This is one of the other problems with what this government has put forward in the China free trade agreement. This government is also removing labour market testing—that critical point at which, in offering jobs, a company must see if there is a local person able to do the job first. That is a critical difference in this agreement compared to other agreements. As I have mentioned, the mandatory skill assessment for safety has been removed. Another element of this agreement that does not exist in others is the generous holiday visa offering for 5,000 young Chinese workers to come into this country, yet there is no equivalent for Australian workers—none whatsoever.
This is a bad agreement. It fails to include the necessary safeguards to protect Australians and Australian jobs. Further still, when we have a problem with the 457 visa program in Australia, where daily we hear examples of exploitation within the 457 visa program—to the extent that the last workplace ombudsman review into the 457 visa program found that one in five people here on that visa were being exploited—it is the wrong time to expand it even further. That is what the government are trying to do. They are not putting Australians first; they are not putting Australian jobs first; they have signed up to a dodgy deal which only costs Australian jobs. The government are trying to blame the unions and blame Labor for a dodgy deal they have done that does not put Australians and Australian job seekers first.
One of the biggest challenges facing our country right now is jobs and the economy, and we have just heard the member for Bendigo rant on about how the China FTA is bad for jobs. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, given the extraordinary growth that industry and businesses anticipate from the China FTA. The China FTA is a crucial part in delivering more jobs and economic prosperity for our nation. The Minister for Trade has done a great job in delivering three free trade agreements that will drive growth in our economy for the foreseeable future, for decades to come. The opportunities and potential that Asia offers are incredible, and Australia is well positioned to leverage off the Asian century opportunities in front of us, on our doorstep.
The federal government has moved swiftly and decisively to address the ongoing problems created by the failure to address productivity and maximise opportunities for our economy over the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That is why our budget has small business tax cuts to incentivise small businesses. Billions of dollars of red tape and green tape are being removed in the free trade agreements with our major trading partners South Korea, China and Japan. Not only is the sheer size of the population in Asia important but also the growth of the middle class. In the future Asia will be home to the majority of the world's middle class—one billion people. By 2025 the region will account for almost half of the world's output. We cannot ignore this area and we must do everything to maximise the economic opportunities and the job opportunities from China and Asia. It is not just across the traditional sectors of strength of Australia, agriculture and mining, but also the increasingly wealthy and mobile middle class of Asia and China demanding a range of services. We know that tourism from China is at record numbers; we know that there is interest in our education services as well. Health and high-quality foods and wines are part of that package. Thanks to this government, businesses and primary producers have been provided with a platform to tap into the market.
At an industry forum I hosted last week with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture at national law firm Piper Alderman, we heard from a number of agribusiness leaders on the opportunities the FTA will present for them. From seafood to horticulture, the potential benefits are enormous. This is what makes the effort by the Australian Labor Party so disappointing. We all know that the Labor Party is a party tied to unions and some of their policies are stuck in the past, not the future. Members opposite are not able to speak for their electorates if they differ from what is being discussed at the national convention, but very rarely have we seen a federal leader of the Labor Party fail to stand up for the interests of the entire nation, for the interests of the economy and for the jobs of Australians and simply comply with the wishes of the faceless men and women of the union movement. The advertising campaign the CFMEU has undertaken is xenophobic at best and racist at worst.
The first myth being purported by the other side and championed by the CFMEU is that Australian projects will have unrestricted access to Chinese workers. As Trade Minister Andrew Robb said today, labour market testing rules surrounding foreign workers are no different than in the FTAs already signed with Japan and Korea. Through investment facilitation arrangements made available under a separate MOU concluded alongside the China FTA, Chinese companies making significant investments in Australia will have access to skilled workers overseas when suitable local workers cannot be found. Such arrangements will not allow unskilled or underpaid workers to be brought in to staff major projects. Under these arrangements, Australian workers will continue to be given first opportunity. Consistent with existing practice, employers will not be permitted to bring in overseas skilled workers unless there is clear evidence of genuine labour market need as determined by the department. Nothing changes in relation to existing labour laws and employment relations. Australia's existing visa arrangements, including the 457, will continue, and only when they cannot find appropriately skilled Australian workers. We have had the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade take the unusual step of directly addressing the claims made by the CFMEU. When Labor Premiers come out in support of the free trade agreements you would expect the Labor Party nationally to change—but no. We have Bob Carr, Simon Crean, Martin Ferguson and Bob Hawke all saying that this is good for Australia and good for Australian jobs, but we get no change from the Labor Party. These free trade agreements are going to add thousands of jobs and increase economic prosperity in the country and are good for Australia.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Labor side of the parliament has a very proud record when it comes to trade liberalisation in this country. For 40 years we have been the party that has stood up for opening ourselves up to the region and beyond when it comes to free trade, particularly as it relates to engagement with China. In all of these ways we have a very proud record, and I have always associated myself in the broad spectrum of people's views when it comes to trade liberalisation. Personally, I have always considered myself to be someone who supports free trade. Our party is a party that supports free trade because we understand that it does create jobs and create opportunities in Australia, as other speakers have mentioned. I also support a free trade agreement with China, but I want it to be the best possible deal for Australia. This means maximising the job opportunities for Australians and minimising the risks of exploitation. I do acknowledge that there are upsides in this agreement for sectors of our economy, but I share my colleagues' concerns about two aspects in particular: labour market testing and skills assessments.
Last year the Prime Minister said he would keep labour market testing under Australia's temporary skilled migration program. As honourable members would be aware, labour market testing requires employers to advertise jobs to Australians first before turning to overseas workers. When you look at the text of the agreement, as I and many of my colleagues have, you see that this promise has been broken—a bit like all of the other promises that have been broken during the first two years of the Abbott government, which we mark today.
We asked the Prime Minister in the parliament about a direct quote from the agreement that said there will be no requirement for labour market testing to enter into an investment facilitation arrangement. The Prime Minister said, 'Oh, it goes on to say that there will be labour market testing in a memorandum of understanding'. It does not do that. The memorandum of understanding says that when employers on IFA projects enter labour agreements with the government, these agreements may include labour market testing. The China free trade agreement has turned labour market testing from a mandated requirement into something that is just an optional extra when it comes to our labour market. It also completely excludes labour market testing for several categories of workers on 457 visas, including service suppliers, installers and others. That is set out very clearly in chapter 10 of the FTA, which says that neither party shall:
… require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect …
That is a particularly troubling mislead from the Prime Minister when it comes to the detail of his party's own agreement, and it is even more concerning when you consider that even today the trade minister, the guy who was supposed to have negotiated this deal, the guy who was supposed to have crossed the t's and dotted the i's before he signed this deal, got it horribly wrong when he tried to claim that the FTA only removes labour market testing for Chinese executives. The Prime Minister must know that this is a woeful lie from the trade minister. He must know that that is not the case in his own agreement. You do get the impression that the government are just making it up as they go along when they go to the detail of this agreement.
You also have to wonder, given their reluctance to sit down in good faith and negotiate and talk about these issues that are concerning to people outside of the parliament, if they really want to pass this agreement given the way they have been behaving. It is not a big ask to sit down with the Labor Party and work through our concerns. As I said before, we want a high quality agreement with China. We want one that creates jobs, that maximises Australian jobs and minimises exploitation. They also must know that you do not need to change or renegotiate the FTA to protect Australian jobs; the parliament can provide the assurance we seek in the enabling legislation. If it does, it could ensure that the enabling legislation includes mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million and ensure that Australians always get the first opportunity before overseas workers are considered. It must also ensure that Australian workplace skills and safety standards are maintained and legislated to ensure our wages are not undercut. These are not unreasonable requests. As I said before, we do support freer trade. We are the party of freer trade and Asian engagement. We want this deal to be the very best it can be, and that means sitting down to maximise Australian jobs and minimise exploitation.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House calls on the Australian Government to:
(1) suspend its commitment to funding the $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link until the Western Australian Government is able to provide credible, substantiated evidence of:
(a) how and when the Western Australian Government is proposing to fund the missing bridge link over the Swan River and the new proposed tunnel;
(b) the optimum capacity of the Fremantle container terminal and the projected timing of when that capacity will be reached;
(c) the planning so far for the development of the new container terminal in Cockburn Sound;
(d) how the Western Australian Government proposes to increase the percentage of rail freight into the Fremantle Port when it has failed to make any headway in its six years in office; and
(2) release all documents relating to the planning and cost benefit analysis of this project.
A big issue in the Canning by-election is the growing congestion on the roads in Perth's south-eastern corridor where you see suburbs literally mushrooming along Armadale Road, pouring thousands of extra vehicles onto those roads each day. Quite frankly the road infrastructure is unable to cope with this. It has led to gridlock as residents seek to access the job-rich areas to the north and to the west of Armadale. Labor has committed $145 million to the cost of the Community Connect South project, which would alleviate these bottlenecks. But the Abbott and Barnett governments find themselves incapable of making the same commitment, because instead they are pouring almost $2 billion into the highly ideological and poorly planned Perth Freight Link.
Today I have written to the Commonwealth Auditor-General asking him to conduct an audit of this project. I have referred the Auditor-General to the extraordinary statements of Premier Colin Barnett to his concerned constituents in a meeting in North Freemantle two weeks ago. In respect of the $935 million section 2 of the project he said, and he described this as the most fundamental point that people needed to have in mind, 'We haven’t even selected a route, haven't decided if it's going to be above ground or in a tunnel'—and tunnels are incredibly expensive—'haven’t decided yet whether it will be done at various interchanges, haven't designed it, haven't done the engineering work, haven't done the environmental work and haven't done the planning work. So the connection is still a long, long way away.' He said that trying to console them. And he said, 'I wish I could stand here and say I've got all the answers. I don’t. And I guess the only excuse I can make is that Roe 8 is ready to go. We have yet to do the work that is required on the connection to the port.' Here we have over 50 per cent of the cost of this project that quite clearly has not been planned. How can we possibly have a cost-benefit analysis done on a project where, as the Premier of Western Australia is telling us, we do not even know where it is going to go? We do not even know if it is going to be subterranean or above the ground. Simply, as he says, the work has not been done. So how can we be committing this $930 million of federal taxpayers' money to a project about which we know so very little?
The secrecy around this project has reached new heights. Members will be aware of my long-term battles against the Commonwealth in trying to collect documents. Late last week I received a request from Main Roads for the fourth extension of time for a mere 53 documents relating to this project. We know what the documents are—a confined number of documents—and they have asked for their fourth extension of time. They have used every lame excuse under the sun to try to justify not revealing these projects. Quite clearly this is a matter of enormous embarrassment. I also received a very interesting FOI today. We actually did get a couple of documents, diary entries out of Senator Cormann's office. It confirms that this was a deal stitched up with Treasurer Mike Nahan, Senator Cormann and the assistant minister for infrastructure at a federal level. They had their meeting in that office, and only two weeks later—we have now got evidence—the poor, hapless WA Minister for Transport went into the meeting expecting that he was going to be making his pitch for funding of the outer harbour and came out with this Perth Freight Link. But, as the Premier says, he has belled the cat. The Premier has said: 'We haven't done the work on this project. We don't know where it's going. It is a long way off.' Well, I say to you, let us withdraw that funding and fund the south connect project. Spend this money on roads where we have done planning and where we know what needs to be done to solve the congestion problems in Perth. (Time expired)
The gall and hypocrisy of the Labor Party and, in particular, the member for Perth is astounding. On this issue, she knows the actions to sell off earmarked lands at Fremantle prevented the highway from going from port to airport as originally envisaged by the Stephenson and Hepburn report in 1955.
I recall being on the transport committee and, quite frankly, asking the question: what analysis was conducted to recommend the deletion of Fremantle Eastern Bypass? The response was: it was a state government decision. I reiterated the question: what analysis? The response: it was a state government decision. In other words, politics writ large and no analysis. Since the deletion of Fremantle Eastern Bypass in 2004 from the metropolitan road scheme, Leach Highway has become the default Perth Freight Link. The only planning the member for Perth did while she was state minister for planning was on how to buy more votes from greenies from the loony left.
The case for the Perth Freight Link is strong. The most significant of the many reasons is the effect the Perth Freight Link will have in terms of community and road user safety. One of the statistics from the City of Melville's document Roe 8 Melville's position: the facts states that for crash rates on urban routes involving trucks—now this is significant—the metropolitan average is 5.4 per cent. So, 5.4 per cent of crashes with road users involved trucks. On Leach Highway, it is 11.1 per cent, and on Kwinana Freeway and Roe Highway—that spaghetti junction that the former minister and now member for Perth deliberately designed as a truncation which was going to cause problems—it is a staggering 31 per cent.
In Western Australia, the Liberal federal government is investing $4.7 billion over five years to build the roads of the 21st century. The extension of Roe Highway is something that I have campaigned long and hard on in the past. This project is tremendously popular and important in my electorate of Tangney. The freight link will remove 500 trucks a day from Leach Highway by 2031, bypass 14 sets of traffic lights, improve access to the Murdoch activity centre and the Fiona Stanley Hospital and create 2,400 jobs.
With specific reference to the member's motion, I note that Fremantle's harbour is forecast, in the next decade, to double to 1.2 million containers per annum. About 20 per cent of Western Australia's economy is linked to trade going in and out of Fremantle. Heavy vehicles and other road freight transport account for around 22 per cent of traffic on key access routes to the Fremantle port inner harbour. This corridor turns over some $16 billion and employs 15,000 people and will double in the next five years. Both the export and import volumes through Fremantle port will continue to grow for years to come. More trade, in particular more exports from WA, means more growth, more jobs and more opportunity for people in WA to get ahead. Without the Perth Freight Link as a productivity-enhancing piece of strategic road infrastructure, this worsening congestion will increasingly act as a handbrake on our economy.
Some people have suggested the Perth Freight Link will not be necessary once we build the second port further south. This is just wrong. Even when a second port is eventually built, it will complement, not replace, Fremantle port. Also, the Perth Freight Link will contribute to more efficient freight movements not just to Fremantle port but to any future second port as well. Indeed, the long-overdue Roe Highway extension will also service any outer harbour in the future.
Today, the member for Perth is campaigning against the strategic road infrastructure in the same way that she campaigned against the construction of Northbridge Tunnel and Graham Farmer Freeway about 15 years ago. In the same way that she was not able to stop the Northbridge Tunnel, which today is used by more than 100,000 cars per day, she will not be able to stand in the way of the Perth Freight Link project.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
It is the same sad old story and the same member for Perth screaming out because she does not have any answers.
I was glad to second this motion. I thank my colleague the member for Perth and shadow parliamentary secretary for Western Australia for providing this opportunity to debate an issue that defines the wastefulness and environmental ignorance and locked-in-the-past approach of the Abbott government. It also exemplifies the complacency and hubris of the coalition when it comes to Western Australia. There can be no doubt that the Abbott and Barnett governments take WA for granted. How else but through complacency and hubris would we see a proposition to spend $2 billion on a road that the WA government never asked for—a road that flies in the face of 20 years of bipartisan port and freight planning around the creation of container capacity in the outer harbour; a road that utterly abandons the opportunity to get significantly more freight on rail; a road that goes nowhere; and a road that ignores the clear evidence of unacceptable harm to environmental and Indigenous heritage values?
As the member for Perth's motion outlines, this is a project that reared up out of nowhere. The transport and logistic bases for the road have clearly been developed after the project was announced, and the belated cost-benefit ratio analysis is highly unconvincing, not least because it does not include analysis of some logical alternatives.
One thing the Perth Freight Link has managed to achieve is a determined and unified community response. In the past few weeks we have seen a number of significant events in which people from both sides of the Swan River have questioned the project's waver-thin justification and its raft of harmful impacts. On 17 August, more than 250 people attended an electors' meeting in the City of Melville that was prompted by widespread disappointment in the lack of scrutiny the council was providing to the project, especially with regard to a number of serious concerns identified by residents. Remember that it was residents in Palmyra and Willagee who, without warning, had received letters suggesting their homes could be subject to compulsory acquisition. The residents and ratepayers expressed their dismay that virtually no account had been taken of the opposition to the destruction of the Beeliar Wetlands, the loss of 500 jobs through the closure of businesses along Stock Road and the impact of diesel particulates throughout the community as a result of a freight transport approach that is sanguine to increasing truck numbers by three or four times. Not surprisingly, a motion was passed at this meeting that called on Melville Council to reverse its unexamined support for Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link. It should be noted that it was the outcry by residents in Palmyra and Willagee that prompted the WA Minister for Transport to float the possibility that High Street and Stock Road could be cut out of the Perth Freight Link altogether in favour of a tunnel or trench through White Gum Valley in Beaconsfield. This thought bubble has simply inflicted the government's confusion further afield, shifting the alarm onto yet another neighbourhood.
On Sunday, 29 August in the Rally at the Valley, some 300 White Gum Valley residents gathered in a local park to make it clear that they reject this kind of chaotic scattergun planning and the proposal to carve a trench of diesel fumes through residential streets, past schools, and childcare centres. Earlier that week, on 25 August, Premier Barnett attended a North Fremantle community forum in his own electorate, along with transport and urban planning expert, Professor Peter Newman. Premier made a number of interesting statements. He initially claimed that trucks might be forced to use the Perth Freight Link but then backed away from that statement. He also said that Roe 8 would cost less than $500 million, contradicting both his own Treasurer and his Minister for Transport, who, at a joint appearance on 12 August, said Roe 8 would cost $741 million.
On 1 September there was a public forum in Cottesloe which Premier Barnett declined to attend, saying it was too political, at which John Hammond, Peter Newman and Labor opposition leader, Mark McGowan, spoke. Residents expressed their fears that the massive increase in the number of trucks to the inner harbour would inevitably result in substantially more trucks on Curtain Avenue and expressed their disbelief that the WA government was not pushing forward with the long-held plans for the container capacity through the outer harbour.
Finally, on 2 September, a public forum in the town of East Fremantle featured Mayor Jim O'Neill, Cole Hendrigan from Curtin University's Sustainability Policy Institute, and Kate Kelly from Save Beeliar Wetlands. Again, a motion was passed on the basis of overwhelming opposition to both the process and the substance of the Perth Freight Link. At the same time as the Abbott and Barnett governments prepare to spend $2 billion on a truck freeway and private toll road that will ensure rising truck numbers throughout the Perth metro area, there are real congestion problems that go unaddressed in WA. The Barnett government should be only too aware that it has broken a number of promises when it comes to key public transport projects, that freight on rail has dropped steeply on its watch, and that it has failed to advance the development of the outer harbour. That is the tragedy of the Perth Freight Link. Not only is it a dud in itself but also it proposes to waste taxpayers' money that should be applied to infrastructure projects of real merit and urgency, including the Community Connect South project to reduce chronic congestion.
Debate adjourned.
I rise as the seconder to support the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and to talk about how we are going to win marriage equality. I am grateful to the mover, the member for Leichhardt, and the co-sponsors, the members for Werriwa, Brisbane—who is here today—Melbourne, Indi, and Denison for the opportunity to second the bill. I believe that marriage equality can and will be won. We are going to win by having the better of the argument because we are on the side calling for equality before the law. We are not going to be defeated by appeals to tradition, because marriage has never been set in stone and because all children and families deserve to feel equally valued. We are going to keep working until this parliament changes the law to make marriage equality a modern Australian reality.
Equality before the law is not a trivial matter that can be brushed aside to allow for old prejudices to be maintained. The right to be free from discrimination is included in article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees equality before the law. The Australian Human Rights Commission considers that the fundamental human rights principle of equality means that civil marriage should be available without discrimination to all couples, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. I respectfully agree. Marriage is not frozen in time. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated, it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that it what it historically has been. It is not even the case that marriage has always been available to people of opposite sex regardless of their own characteristics and attributes. Nowadays Protestants can marry Catholics but that was not always the case. First Nations people can marry without permission but, as Steven Oliver has pointed out, referring to his own grandparents, that was not always so. Persons of different races can marry. That was not always so. Marriage has changed, and so have families. The law, always a laggard, should change too.
This parliament should and ultimately, I think, will change the law. The High Court has made clear that this parliament already has the power to legislate for marriage equality. Suggestions of a plebiscite or a referendum are intended to obstruct. The Prime Minister in supporting such ideas is not doing so because he wants marriage equality. To the contrary, he has reportedly said he will use tricky processes to block it. We are here to legislate. Let us do so. We should no more abdicate our responsibility by outsourcing this decision than we should in respect of any other. I know that this bill might not be given the treatment it deserves in this parliament, but this cause, the cause of marriage equality, will receive the treatment it deserves when we ultimately win. We in this place have an opportunity to do something good—something transformative for people's lives that does not cost a cent. It not an opportunity that you get very often. We have the opportunity to open up to more people the sort of joy and pride that we witnessed this year in Ireland and in the United States, if only we have the courage to consider all relationships as being equal.
I acknowledge the work that Australian Marriage Equality and PFLAG have done. I thank Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek for their leadership on marriage equality, along with many other members and senators, especially Senator Wong, whose support for equality is well known. I acknowledge those in political parties like Rainbow Labor, like LNProud, like the New South Wales Young Nationals, along with the many individual members who have advocated for marriage equality, along with the political and parliamentary staff who have worked on this bill. I thank every Australian who has contacted my office to advocate for, and against, marriage equality respectfully. I have to say that not all of the emails I have received have been respectful, but most of them have been. I thank everyone who has told me their personal stories. I recently received a beautiful wedding photo from a woman who had married her partner at the time, briefly, when marriage equality was lawful in the ACT. It was a beautiful picture and she wrote to me to say 'thank you for continuing to advocate for marriage equality' and she hopes that one day soon marriage equality will be a reality for her and her partner as well. I have had people from all walks of life in very unexpected places, including when I have travelled overseas, stop me to say, 'I'm really glad that people are working for marriage equality and that they are doing it in such a bipartisan fashion'.
So, for everyone who might be feeling a bit disappointed about the fact this bill is not presently listed for a vote, or about the messages being sent by the Prime Minister, I want you to know that we are on the right side of the argument. We are standing up for couples, families and kids and we know this parliament has the power to legislate. Those of us who are advocating for marriage equality should telephone our federal representatives and ask them to allow this bill to come on for further debate and for a vote. Together we can make marriage equality a reality.
I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill, which allows any two people to marry and have their marriage recognised regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. At its heart this bill is all about removing discrimination and prejudice from what is fundamentally a personal decision that each and every one of us is entitled to make—it is our own freedom of choice as to who we choose to love for the rest of our lives. As I have said many times, the decision is not one any government is entitled to make and it is not a decision that should be permitted to set one section of our society against another.
To those who oppose this bill or in some way are threatened by this, I say marriage is not a statement of moral superiority. Marriage is a simple statement of love and commitment. When did we forget that? With that in mind, who are any of us to prevent the expression of that love based upon a person's sexuality. Because this bill is focused on removing discrimination, it also provides absolute protection of religious freedoms because you cannot replace one form of prejudice and discrimination with another. The bill does not compel ministers of religion or chaplains to undertake same sex marriages where to do so would contravene the tenets of their faith and it is consistent with antidiscrimination laws that have been in existence in this country for decades. It will not permit discrimination in the provision of goods and services to same sex couples seeking to get married. For all those people who cite the US examples of the so-called religious dilemma facing florists and cake providers for same sex couples wanting to get married, the refusal of those goods and services on the basis of a person's sexuality is already unlawful. This bill will not permit us to wind back the progress that, thankfully, we have made in becoming a much more tolerant and inclusive society.
My view is that on this issue party political positions should be abandoned in favour of what each person's conscience tells them. For me, as a Liberal member of parliament, that would be democracy in its purest form. As such, this bill's unique status as having cross party support is particularly significant. Each cosponsor of this bill has set aside their particular party political alliances and has acted in accordance with their conscience in keeping the majority view of their constituents. This is how democracy is supposed to work and regrettably it is too rare. To all of my fellow cosponsors, especially the member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Warren Entsch, who led us in bringing the bill to the House, I want to say thank you. Being able to work with you all in bringing this bill before the parliament has been a great honour and it is also my privilege to be speaking in this chamber today with the member for Griffith. I also want to thank my chief of staff, John Lamont, for his technical legal expertise in drafting the bill and the accompanying explanatory memorandum and statement of compatibility and all of the parliamentary staff who have worked with this bill. It has been a great privilege for my office to have drafted this bill.
As people we are all of us much more than our sexuality, in the same way that we are much more than our racial origins or any disability that we might have. Our worth, as people, is in no way diminished by any of these characteristics, none of which should be allowed to serve as a disqualifier to all of us enjoying rights so fundamental and basic as our choice on who we love.
It is in the nature of human experience that views change over time. Once upon a time, society did not permit people of different races to marry, women were treated as property and the earth was thought to be flat. Thankfully, we have evolved. Given that, for all of us, our time on earth is too short, why would any one of us seek to deny another the chance to experience love in their lifetime? It is a ridiculous proposition to contend that a gay person needs love to any lesser degree than I do. This is not a politician's response; I would like to think of it as a human response. And so many people have said before me that, if there was just a little bit more love in the world, it would be a better place for all this.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:26 to 16:00
It is very hard to understand why more than $2 billion would be spent on the Perth Freight Link—a road that came out of nowhere and goes nowhere but which would cause enormous environmental and community destruction—when there are road projects that have been identified and planned for some time with clear community, transport efficiency and congestion-reducing benefits that need funding support.
The Community Connect South project requires $290 million in total funding for two major road projects to reduce chronic traffic congestion on Armadale Road in the Cockburn Central area. This much needed infrastructure will also have the benefit of linking two major activity centres and of connecting an area of strong population growth to an area that is becoming an employment hub.
There are two components: first, a dual carriageway for the length of Armadale Road and, second, a bridge and freeway interchange that will link Armadale Road and North Lake Road. People in my electorate—especially those who live in Success and Cockburn Central, on the west side of the Kwinana Freeway, and those who live in Atwell, Banjup and Hammond Park, on the east side of the freeway—are seriously affected by the current inadequacy of Armadale Road and the dysfunction at the intersection with North Lake Road. I am glad to support Community Connect South, and I am pleased that federal Labor has pledged to provide the Commonwealth half of the funding in government.
The Prime Minister claims to lead a party of jobs, growth and infrastructure. If that is so, he should commit to funding the Community Connect South project, which would deliver jobs, growth and infrastructure. It would be a win-win-win, both for the people in my electorate of Fremantle and for the people of Canning.
This is always a unique opportunity—largely because you never get such a large audience in the other chamber—but, for me, this is a particularly unique opportunity to be able to speak about something that quite surprised me. I thought that modern technological devices were particularly important. I thought that they aided children's development. What I found was that, if your children are watching these devices all the time, their schoolwork results deteriorate, but, if they play sport, they continue to get outstanding results. So it pleased me when over the weekend I was able to go to the Northern Suburbs Football Association for their girls—women's—football cup. It was a unique occasion. I must say that I have never seen such a competitive environment, and I wanted to comment about it and draw attention to it. It was the clash between Mount Colah and Northbridge. The game finished nil-all. It surprised me that, when they had extra time, it was still nil-all. Then I saw these girls go into penalty shoot-outs. I must say, I though Northbridge was in front, but then they missed one and Mount Colah was able to come out again in front. I congratulate Paul McSweeney and his team. It was a fantastic match at Asquith and brought great credit to the district.
I was very pleased recently to attend the annual Banana Festival, a remarkable festival in my electorate. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Tweed Valley Banana Festival, a great achievement for the region. From its very humble beginning in 1956, the festival has grown and developed into a huge celebration of our region's agriculture, history and community. Festival coordinator Eryn Young summed it up when she said, 'It's a chance for people from a range of community groups to get together and celebrate everything that is good in the region.' Thousands of festival goers were in Murwillumbah watching the main parade, which had a wide variety of floats and entertainment. There are the festival mascots, Banana Jim and Sugar Sue, and the theme 'Banana Festival Through the 60 Years' was evident in the parade and entertainment.
Whilst the produce of our region has changed over time, many locals and families still have very strong connections to the banana industry. I would especially like to congratulate Brooke Magnum, from Kingscliff, who was crowned festival queen, and I congratulate all the other winners. The Banana Festival is also an important fundraising event. In 2015 alone the Banana Queens raised over $27,000 for local charities, a great achievement. It really is testament to the civic-mindedness and hard work of all the Banana Queen entrants but also our local business organisations, community organisations and all those individuals who continue to generate so generously to our community. I thank you all for participating and donating. It is a wonderful fundraising event. The 60th anniversary of the festival is a tribute not only to its very rich history but also to our very strong community.
On 21 and 23 August the professional learning institute of the University of the Sunshine Coast hosted a start-up weekend for 36 year 10 to year 12 students. The remarkable thing was that one of the judges there was Sally-Ann Williams, from Google, who is known to many in this place. She has attended these start-up weekends, which are a collaboration of ideas. Teams get together on a Friday, pitch an idea, form a group and then work hard over the weekend at home and at the uni to pitch an idea to venture capitalists that could actually turn into a Google. Sally-Ann said that of all of the pitches she has seen all around Australia, both from adults and from children, this was the highest quality she had seen. There were at least three pitches on the day that could have been turned immediately into businesses.
The winner on the day was headed up by a young man called Josiah Bettenay, a year 10 student at Mountain Creek State High School. He was joined by his classmates Mitch Keefe, Jayden Wilson, Georgia Walker-Healy and Emma Conway. Their idea was to develop an app to take all the paper out of being a learner driver—and wouldn't every parent like that idea! It came up because of a lived experience with his sister, who had to fill out all this paperwork. So congratulations to the team and to Graeme Breen, who is leading the way with the digital economy on the Sunshine Coast. Thank you to the University of the Sunshine Coast, and well done to all of those children for seeing the future.
On Sunday, 23 August, I attended the annual general meeting of the Valentine Bowling Club. Valentine Bowling Club is nestled on the shores of Lake Macquarie, in one of the most picturesque areas that you can imagine. It is a club that is an integral part of the community. It supports the community, and it is an outstanding club for its members. The Valentine Bowling Club performs very well on the greens. It has a program that embraces people of all ages. Probably the only change that members would like is to have a few more younger members joining the club. In addition to performing in an outstanding manner on the greens, the club also provides an excellent venue for weddings and other events, as it overlooks the beautiful waters of Lake Macquarie. It is a club where everyone is made to feel welcome. There is a fantastic trivia night there, as well as great meals. It is an accessible place that people can walk to and they can walk home after enjoying themselves.
I feel very privileged to be a patron of Valentine Bowling Club, as I have been for a number of years. I have watched it grow and expand to meet the needs of the people of the community.
On 23 August, I attended the 50th anniversary celebration of the Blakehurst Baptist Church. The 50th anniversary celebration was a great community event. The church plays an important role in Blakehurst and, indeed, more broadly in the Banks electorate. After starting in 1965 in South Carlton, it moved to Blakehurst in 1967. It is led by the Reverend Grae McWhirter, who has served as senior pastor since 2002, and his family has been part of the church community for some decades. The church has a long history of service in the local community, including activities like playgroup classes, English classes, craft groups and youth groups, and it also provides support for seniors.
Importantly, Blakehurst Baptist Church supports Christian mission work all around the world. In recent years the church has supported the work of mission partners in Ecuador, Lebanon and Burkina Faso. The church community also takes a special interest in humanitarian issues in Cambodia. Through its ChiredziKids program, the church has been supporting vulnerable children in a remote part of Zimbabwe since 2001. The program currently supports 17 kids.
Thank you to Minister McWhirter and to everyone involved in Blakehurst Baptist Church for your contribution to our community.
In 2013, the ANU Women's Department's Alisa Draskovic thought to herself, 'Why is it that a blue singlet is referred to as a "wife beater"?' She said:
When I heard the term 'wife beater' it struck me … 'why do we refer to an item of clothing and make a reference to violence against women?'
Alisa Draskovic then set up, in 2013, the This is Not a 'Wife Beater' campaign. She featured in that campaign blue singlets with names such as 'Partner Respecter', 'Family Respecter', 'Child Respecter', and 'Lover Respecter'.
In August of this year, the third This is Not a 'Wife Beater' campaign was held at the ACT Legislative Assembly. Genevieve Jacobs was the MC and Jeanette Phillips gave the welcome to country and a very moving speech about her own experience. Among the other ambassadors were Vicki Parker, John Hinchey, Michael Costigan, Kylie Travers, Nip Wijewickrema and Yvette Berry MLA. Meegan Fitzharris, Chris Bourke and Mick Gentleman were also in attendance. The event reminded us of the importance for all Canberrans to take a stand against family violence and to ensure that our language does not support stereotypes and does not inadvertently support further family violence in our community.
I formally recognise the valuable contribution by the Salvation Army in my electorate of Moore. Earlier this year, Captains Scott and Natalie Norman were appointed to lead the local Heathridge Corps. May I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated service of their predecessors, Captains Cymon and Naava Brooks, who earned tremendous respect in the local area for their compassionate work.
The Salvation Army provides a range of support and outreach services within our community, including family support services, homeless and crisis care and assistance at emergency situations. The Salvos assist over 100,000 people in WA each year through 63 social programs, delivering around $30 million worth of social support. May I place on record this parliament's appreciation for the dedicated service of the Salvation Army, with its 450 employees and 2,000 volunteers.
The annual Red Shield Appeal, held in May, raised $410,000 in WA, which was around $360,000 short of the target. I would like to encourage the local business community to partner with the Salvation Army through corporate sponsorship to enable the organisation to deliver more community services to those in need within our community. By working together we can improve the lives of fellow Australians less fortunate than us.
If anything has mobilised the world to act on Syria and what is happening in the Middle East, it has been the image of that little boy—the body of Aylan Kurdi washed up on the beach. The image is so haunting and so deeply moving that I think it will stay with most of us and linger with us for the rest of our lives. We saw that large, muscular official holding and carrying that tiny little body, but it is not a normal child's body that is limp with drowsiness or sleep; it is a dead child's body and it is stiff with a lack of life.
That is why I commend the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration and border protection for today calling on the government to show genuine compassion and leadership and provide real assistance to refugees displaced by the conflict in the Middle East. They called on the government to ensure that Australia works towards making an offer of 10,000 additional places for refugees as a one-off additional increase in the humanitarian program on top of Australia's existing intake and, in addition, to immediately contribute an extra $100 million towards humanitarian relief efforts.
Today marks two years since the election of our government. Since 7 September 2013, under the leadership of Prime Minister Abbott, the coalition government has focused on building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. Our government has implemented a number of important reforms including: abolishing the carbon and mining taxes; finalising three free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea; and delivering the lowest company tax rate for small business in almost 50 years. We are investing record funding in infrastructure, particularly in roads and child care.
As the member for Corangamite, I am proud of the investments we are delivering for the electorate, which include: a new $14 million national Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre at Deakin in Waurn Ponds; $185.5 million to duplicate the Princes Highway between Winchelsea and Colac; $25 million for the Great Ocean Road upgrade; $2.1 million for 10 mobile base stations; $15 million for the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund; and $2.6 million for a new job creation program under our Geelong Region Job Connections program.
Of course, there is much more hard work to be done, and I will continue to stand up for jobs, infrastructure and the environment. I am asking my constituents to contact me by email and give me their ideas and their priorities. I would be delighted to hear from them—their voice matters.
Last month I attended the South Asian Food Festival and India Day celebrations in Werribee in Melbourne's west. Around 20,000 people attended the festival on the day to try all the different cuisines of the South Asian subcontinent and to be entertained by hundreds of local artists and performers. Towards the end of the day, the Indian, Australian and Aboriginal flags were raised together; the event concluding with the largest India Day parade outside of India.
Australia and India have always had close ties, but in recent years our cultural and personal relationships have grown stronger and deeper. There are over 400,000 people of Indian origin living in Australia, and that number will almost certainly increase dramatically in the next few years. We have welcomed many Indian and South Asian migrants to Australia. India alone has become one of our fastest-growing migrant communities and made up 13 per cent of our migrant intake from 2007 to 2011. This festival was a testament to the pride of Indian culture, a welcoming of newly arrived migrants and a celebration of Australian multiculturalism. Events like the South Asian Food Festival are testament to the diversity and multiculturalism that Australia and particularly Melbourne's west are renowned for as well as to the contribution that the Australian Indian community is making to Australian society and Australian culture as a whole.
I want to thank everyone involved in organising the event, particularly Hari Yellina and all of the volunteers, who worked so hard to make it such a success. I wish all Indian-Australians in my electorate—and across Melbourne's west and Australia—a very happy India Day. I look forward to celebrating many of them in the future to come.
Recently I had the pleasure of attending a morning assembly at Bligh Park Public School, where I presented them with an Anzac Day Schools' Award, a $500 cheque and a plaque. Due to the phenomenal effort of staff and students, Bligh Park was awarded runner up in the New South Wales primary schools category, for their beautifully presented, creative and informative entry to commemorate 100 years since World War I. It was wonderful to see young children from kindergarten to year 6 involved in bringing the Anzac tradition to life. I give special mention to school principal Joan Westerweller and librarian Linda Ferris for developing and guiding an idea for the entry in the federal government's competition.
All staff gave their students the opportunity to learn about and reflect on World War I in a creative and engaging way. Each Anzac Day, Bligh Park Public School put a lot of effort into hosting a ceremony and taking part in related activities in the weeks leading up to it. Hands-on learning is encouraged, and servicemen and servicewomen visit the school to share their experience with the children.
I was honoured to attend the Anzac ceremony held at the school this year. I was also given the opportunity to have a tour through the school's entry into Anzac Day Schools' Award. The students created a trench in their Anzac Learning Centre, where they taped cardboard boxes to the floor and smeared them with mud to make the trenches look real; sandbags were also filled and hauled to the centre. The students also built an honour board, and after research, plaques explaining the names of Hawkesbury First World Ward servicemen and women were added. The board is now displayed with pride in the school foyer.
On Monday 24 August I attended the 51st anniversary of the Belmont branch of the Red Cross. This is a group that has served the community very well over those 51 years. They have been involved in fundraising and in providing assistance to people in need. They have been totally committed to the goals of the Red Cross.
Many people have been members of that Red Cross group, and it was great catching up with those who have been so dedicated and committed to the Red Cross in Belmont. It is nothing unusual to go to the shopping centre and see the Red Cross ladies out there selling raffle tickets and fundraising for organisations. When the bad fires were raging in Victoria, I joined in with the Belmont Red Cross and we raised over $17,000 for the Red Cross, which was then forwarded to those people in Victoria who were very much in need of support.
The Red Cross is a fantastic organisation internationally and it does a fantastic job on the ground in the Shortland electorate. So, congratulations to Belmont Red Cross on its 51st anniversary!
The Green Army encourages hands-on environmental action while providing paid work and training to thousands of young people around Australia. In my electorate of Petrie there have been two projects completed recently. But I would like to acknowledge the Green Army at North Lakes, which finished up at the end of August. I would like to congratulate them on the hard work and the real environmental difference they have made to the North Lakes Reserve.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge the leader of the group, Alex Collins, who worked with me amongst other people involved in the Mango Hill and North Lakes Environmental Group to develop this project from a very early stage. I would like to acknowledge Charlotte, Mikayla, Penelope, Jasper, Lucy and Luke—part of the team—as well, for the great work that they did.
They cleared the area of foreign vegetation and weeds. They planted hundreds of native trees and shrubs. They installed bird and possum boxes to encourage wildlife and released 500 native freshwater fish to help with mosquito control in the local freshwater ecosystem.
If there are people in the electorate of Petrie who have other great ideas for Green Army projects, let me know. Finally, I would like to thank the minister, Greg Hunt, and his team for all the support they gave the North Lakes Green Army and me during this project. Thank you.
I would like to tell the House about a new mobile phone tower at Mount Dorothy in my wonderful electorate of Indi, in the shire of Murrindindi.
Residents in the Mount Dorothy area near Yea can now use their mobile phones with much greater reliability, thanks to the installation of the new Telstra base station. Congratulations to the local community for calling for the Mount Dorothy tower be activated. Particularly, thanks to Telstra for all the work done in getting it built.
I visited Mount Dorothy on Saturday 28 August with Telstra central Victorian area manager, Steve Tinker, to see how improved coverage will mean fewer call dropouts, increased data speeds and improved service to all the people in the area. Under the federal government's Mobile Black Spot Program eight towers will be constructed in the Murrindindi shire. Many people know that this area was devastated during the 2009 bushfires. This will mean the saving of many lives.
These locations will get mobile phone coverage for the first time. Communities in the Murrindindi Shire nominated these areas as part of round 1 of the Mobile Phone Black Spot Program. In this program, colleagues, Indi received the third-highest allocation of all towers across Australia. This shows that the process of consultation and community engagement works. Thanks to the Department of Communications and Telstra for their fantastic work, together with the Indi Telecommunications Action Group, that worked so hard to make this happen. (Time expired)
During the last two weeks, I have had three forums in my electorate, including a citizenship forum, which was conducted with the help of the member for Berowra, Mr Philip Ruddock. We had an education forum at Campbelltown, where over 40 attendees were joined by Senator Bridget McKenzie. This was one of her 15 forums that are being held around the country in conjunction with the department of education and the Department of Social Services. We had attendees from the state government, principals from schools and colleges from all around the state, representatives from the university, vocational training providers, local government and parents, particularly parents from the Isolated Children's Parents' Association in Tasmania. Deb Nichols from Triabunna made a particularly relevant contribution on the day. It should not matter what your postcode is in terms of access to higher education, but actually it does, and it needs to change.
On Saturday I was very pleased to have Josh Frydenberg, the Assistant Treasurer, meet with my wine producers and my whisky distillers talking taxation reform. Some may know that the assistant minister has released an important discussion paper around the WET and the rebate and there were industry representatives there, including: Damon Mackey from Shene Distillery, Peter Bignell from Belgrove, Steve Lubiana from Stefano Lubiana Wines, Bill McHenry from McHenry distillers, Lindy Bull from Freycinet Vineyards and Gerald Ellis from Meadowbank.
This year I marked the Centenary of Anzac at a dawn service at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. Meanwhile, Mehmet Bicoll, a local icon from Footscray in Melbourne's west, travelled to Gallipoli. Mehmet was born in Turkey and arrived in Australia in 1970. He has owned businesses in Buckley Street in Footscray and tells fantastic stories of his time in Australia. His most famous story was when he served Prince Charles a kebab in Footscray Park. Mehmet loves his adopted country as much as he loves the country of his birth. He is always at local events representing the Turkish Australian community, and he represents Australia when he returns to visit his family in Turkey.
A few weeks ago, Mehmet came into my office unannounced, as he often does, to show me and my staff some photos from his trip. In almost all of his photos he is draped with the Turkish and Australian flags, smiling with strangers he met along the way. I was proud to lend him one of these Australian flags from my office, which once hung outside the chamber, to take with him on his journey. Back in Australia, Mehmet has spent time and money making sure that all the RSLs in Victoria have a framed image of the founder of modern Turkey, Ataturk, and his famous speech about Turkey and Australia's relationship. It is the famous poem that goes:
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 …
Mehmet has worked tirelessly in our local community since arriving 45 years ago. He is a wonderful ambassador for Australia and our community and a great example of the success of Australian multiculturalism.
Recently I hosted the federal Minister for Health in Rockhampton for a series of important engagements. The minister inspected a new three-storey cancer treatment unit at Rockhampton Base Hospital partly funded by a $120 million Australian government grant. Previously, cancer patients had to travel to Brisbane for treatment. I congratulate hospital board chair, Charles Ware, CEO, Len Richards, and their team of dedicated medical professionals who operate the centre.
While in Rockhampton, the minister held discussions with pharmacists and GPs over many important issues. The minister also officially opened a $3 million accommodation block at the Mater Hospital. The units offer low-cost accommodation to the family and friends of hospital patients, aged care residents and visiting medical students and consultants. It was assisted by a $1.8 million Australian government grant and $207,000 in donations from our community. I congratulate Mater CEO, Ian Mill, board chair, Leesa Jeffcoat, and all of their team for this project.
Finally, the minister officially opened the $6.4 million stage 2 health clinic at CQUniversity. Operating as a formal public clinic for North Rockhampton residents, it doubles as a training site for CQUniversity oral health therapy, podiatry, speech pathology and allied health students. CQU is an important university for regional health training.
Mr Deputy Speaker Southcott, congratulations on your retirement. One of the great events in the South Australian racing calendar is the Balaklava Cup. This year it was a very special cup because Joyce Fisher, who turned 97 on 6 September, celebrated 65 years of volunteering at the Balaklava Race Club for the Community Caterers. I am indebted to Andrew Manuel, the managing director of the Plains Producer, a very fine country newspaper that services Balaklava and the surrounding areas—
An honourable member interjecting—
That is a plug for them, indeed! It is great that Joyce could attend this great function. It is great that she is reportedly larger than life and every day is seen at the local bakery having a cup of coffee and a cake. She lives independently at Mill Court Homes. I have visited Mill Court; it is a very lovely establishment. She was honoured in 2013 as Wakefield Regional Council's Australia Day Citizen of the Year. She also volunteers for Meals on Wheels, and she celebrated 35 years of volunteering with them in 2011. She is certainly a very active citizen, and we would like to wish her a happy 97th birthday from the Australian parliament.
I am delighted to inform the House that the Write for Reid competition, which I was pleased to introduce into my electorate last year, has again been a huge success and has quickly become a feature of the school year in Reid. This year's topic was 'I am grateful for …' and my office received a massive number of entries from primary schools across the electorate. The entries demonstrated the incredible talent of the students and the dedication of the numerous teachers in my local schools. The entries covered all manner of topics, with the students expressing gratitude for many things—most notably family, friends and the safe environment that Australia has been able to provide to them and to so many people from around the world.
I was pleased to announce the winners during Literacy and Numeracy Week. This year the three winners wrote of three different aspects of Australian life. One wrote about their appreciation for their parents, another spoke of her gratitude for our medical professionals and the third winner spoke of her thanks for the basic ability to turn on the tap to obtain fresh water. To Megan Vu of St Mary's Catholic Primary School, to Layne Foo of Burwood Public School and to Iman Nelgabaz of Meriden junior school I say congratulations! I was thrilled to meet the talented writers last week over a morning tea in my office, along with their parents and teachers, who were understandably so proud. I thank all the students who took part in this inspiring competition and I am looking forward to reading next year's entries already.
On Friday, 28 August, I attended the opening of St Brigid's Catholic College, a new high school in the northern part of the Central Coast within the Shortland electorate. St Brigid's brings a full choice of Catholic education to the northern part of the coast. St Brendan's is a well-established primary school that has been operating there for many years, and I thank Catholic Education for making the commitment to provide a high school in the area.
I attended the sod turning for St Brigid's back in 2012 or 2013 and the school opened in 2014. It did take some vision on behalf of Catholic Education and a preparedness to make that commitment in an area where there currently is not a high school. Students from the northern part of the Wyong shire previously had to travel some distance in an area where there is no public transport, and the transport that is available is very poor. This is really a phenomenal commitment by Catholic Education, a commitment that makes it possible for students to enjoy Catholic education from kindergarten to year 12. Congratulations.
I would like to pay tribute to one of Tasmania's most notable educators and advocates for women's rights, Mollie Campbell-Smith, who died on 7 July at the age of 98. Mrs Campbell-Smith was educated in Devonport and Launceston before attending the University of Melbourne, where she graduated with a bachelor of science. She then graduated with a diploma of education from the University of Tasmania. She became the senior science teacher at the Methodist Ladies' College in Launceston in the early 1950s and continued to teach and mentor at the school until her retirement in 1986.
With Launceston doctor John Morris, Mrs Campbell-Smith produced a secondary school education program on relationships and sex education, which, in the late 1960s, was used throughout the Tasmanian state system. She was also a director and life member of the American Field Service, Governor of the Tasmanian Community Foundation, and a committee member of the Northern Regional Suicide Prevention Group and the Tasmania Dementia Care Group. She also served as State Commissioner of the Girl Guides in the 1980s and was President of the Australian Federation of University Women.
Amongst many honours bestowed during a busy and productive life, Mrs Campbell-Smith was awarded a Member of the British Empire Medal in 1986 and an Order of Australia Medal in 2008. She is survived by five children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I express my sincere condolences to her family and friends.
I rise to present a petition that has been approved by the House.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned residents of Allans Flat, Victoria, 3691 draws to the attention of the House, the urgent need for an upgraded internet service for Allans Flat, Victoria.
After consultation with Telstra regarding poor internet speeds, testing was carried out at the main Telstra ADSL junction box located at corner of Albion Lane and Osbornes Flat Road, Allans Flat. Following these tests Telstra advised that the junction box was congested and in need of major hardware upgrades. This is true because speed tests carried out by 3 residents closest to the junction box showed that on most occasions download speeds were less than the Telstra guarantee of 1.5mbps.
Telstra has advised me that at present it is not feasible to upgrade the junction box to ADSL2, however it will be serviced at end of 2015 to handle the number of customers on the network but will only remain an ADSL1 facility. This is of concern considering that NBN Co Ltd has indicated there is no future planned rollout of broadband facilities to service our immediate area.
Residents of Allans Flat; from students to business owners, should not be forced to accept an internet service that disadvantages us to our metropolitan and urban regional counterparts.
We respectfully petition the House to either a) Priorities and implement the rollout of the NBN broadband network to service our immediate area or b) apply pressure to Telstra to upgrade their junction boxes from ADSL1 to ADSL2 or higher
From 64 citizens
Petition received.
The petition has been signed by 63 residents of Allans Flat, in my electorate of Indi. The intent of the petition is to draw the House's attention to the urgent need for an upgrade of internet services for Allans Flat. The residents consulted with Telstra regarding poor internet speeds. Tests conducted by Telstra showed that there was congestion at the junction box and that major hardware upgrades were needed to fix this issue.
The residents of Allans Flat are in a no-win situation. On one hand, Telstra advises it is not feasible to upgrade the junction box to ADSL2 and, on the other hand, NBN Co. advises that there are no further planned rollouts of broadband facilities to service this area. Allen's Flat residents now have to endure download speeds that are inconsistent and are frequently less than the Telstra guarantee, of 1.5 Mbps. This is just not good enough for the students, the businesses and the families who live in this regional part of Australia.
I support the sentiments of this petition. I say thank you to Carl Raines for getting it organised. On behalf of the residents of Allans Flat I call on the government to solve this problem. I call on NBN Co. to prioritise the rollout of the broadband network to service Allans Flat or to direct Telstra to upgrade junction boxes from ADSL1 to ADSL2 or higher in those areas not included in the NBN rollout plan.
As members know, employment is always a big issue, particularly youth unemployment, in my own electorate and I am sure in the electorates of the members for Forde, Capricornia and Hinkler. It is a big issue. I want to pay tribute and thank my great mate Scott Morrison for coming up to the electorate and for holding a number of forums but particularly an employment forum locally with about 30 local service providers, including some great organisations such as the Beacon Foundation and the Ted Noffs Foundation, Queensland.
As we understand it, the first step is that there must be jobs available in the first place and that is why the government has embarked on the largest small business package our country has ever seen. It is why we have cut taxes, particularly for businesses. We have also got rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax, thereby reducing costs on local businesses. It is why we have cut over $1 billion of red tape every year and, in our first year, over $2 billion so that we can give that confidence to local employers to go out and create those jobs.
But of course once those jobs are available we need to ensure that our local young people have every opportunity available to them to be upskilled and to get those jobs. That is why it was great to have the Social Services Minister, Scott Morrison, there to talk to organisations like Beacon Foundation, which is doing amazing things, giving young people this opportunity. The Ted Noffs Foundation is doing the same thing, as are other local service providers, so that our local young people can run at those opportunities and find meaningful employment.
It is always a great honour to follow the member for Longman, the country's youngest MP. I wish to offer my appreciation for the service that Glenys Brooks and Graham Fisher have provided to the Barossa and Light Herald, which is a very important newspaper in my electorate, based in Tanunda, stretching from Gawler to Eudunda, and of course to my hometown of Kapunda.
As a country newspaper the Heraldactually has one of the largest circulations in South Australia and obviously has a very large distribution area. Glenys had over 14 years service looking after advertising and, unfortunately, she is finishing up due to ill health. She was always very helpful and reliable to my office.
Graham Fisher is retiring as editor after 10 years with the Herald. He has always been very fair and balanced. I always enjoyed working with him and always got not just a fair hearing but also a bit of useful advice from an old newspaperman—Graham previously had a career with the old, now defunct Adelaide News. The Barossa and Light Herald is a great paper. We now know that Gemima is going to fill in as editor. I wish her all luck in her role and wish the paper many years of success in the future.
Last week I had the absolute pleasure of meeting some members of STEPS Care for Carers group at Childers, a small town in the middle of my electorate. They are a small group of dedicated seniors who are full-time carers of a family member. I thank Carol Hawkshaw for inviting me to attend. The meeting was held at Forest View Aged Care at Childers, which is an exceptional facility. It was great to get the opportunity to get direct feedback from those involved in using government systems.
There are some 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia, many of whom are so modest and humble that they do not identify themselves as carers. Carers often experience social isolation and financial hardship as a result of their caring responsibilities. Volunteer carers play a vital role in our communities. They are part of the social glue that holds them together. Without them the cost to taxpayers of caring for those in need would be significantly higher than it is today. That is why we must support our volunteers to care for their loved ones.
Carers aged 25 years or younger have until 28 September to apply for one of more than 330 bursaries worth $3,000 each to help them continue their education. I urge young Hinkler carers who are juggling part-time work, study and their caring responsibilities to apply for the 2016 Young Carers Bursary Programme. Next month, 11 to 17 October, is National Carers Week. I hope other members and senators will join me in raising community awareness of the issue and thanking our carers for the extraordinary work that they do.
Recently I had the privilege of attending the YMCA at Lake Haven. It was very special, because Lake Haven is an area where there are a lot of families that do not have a lot of money but when I walked into that YMCA I walked into a centre that was absolutely packed with people. There were a variety of activities taking place. There was a netball competition. Upstairs there were weights that were being done by local residents. There were fitness classes taking place. In addition to that there is a creche that enables parents to go along, do their exercise, stay fit and at the same time know that their children are being cared for in a very secure environment. The atmosphere at the YMCA at Lake Haven was very special. It was one of support, of understanding and of assurance that nobody is turned away if they need the services that are provided there. It was a fantastic experience meeting with the manager, Michelle— (Time expired)
It is always a great opportunity to stand in this place and recognise some of the wonderful achievements of the young athletes in our electorates. In this case I would like to recognise one of our outstanding young athletes, Heather Blakeway from Loganholme. Heather is one of Logan PCYC's rhythmic gymnasts. At only 14 she has already competed overseas. Last year she was crowned the country's best at the 2014 Australian Rhythmic Gymnastic Championships and went on to represent Australia in the New Zealand championships. Heather recently received a Local Sporting Champions grant. This will enable her to represent Australia in Japan and New Zealand again this year.
I recently had the pleasure of catching up with Heather and her proud mother, Christine, and coach, Kerrie, to wish this rising star every success for the future. Heather took the opportunity to bring in some of her medals. It looks like her mum will have to get her a bigger trophy cabinet, as this young lady's passion for the sport continues to grow. Heather trains for up to 20 hours a week as well as studying and attending school. She has a real passion for gymnastics and says that the hard work put into training as well as the dedication to schoolwork is worth it. I wish her every success for the upcoming championships and for the future.
Order! The time for members' statements has expired.
The Australian Labor Party is no longer the party that stands for jobs and communities as they would have you believe. This is nowhere more evident than in my home electorate of Capricornia and Queensland's coal and beef export belt. Lately there have been many examples of this, ranging from their failure to support our nation's much-needed free trade deal with China to Labor's reluctance to fully support key coal projects like Adani's, and to the ongoing impact of Labor's own policy of 100 per cent fly-in fly-out workforces, which has locked local people out of local jobs on Central Queensland mine sites.
In Queensland, Labor's 100 per cent FIFO initiative alone has resulted in the decimation of small businesses and families in places like Moranbah, Dysart, Collinsville, Middlemount and Clermont. Further to this, in Capricornia Labor has failed to provide a boutique gaming licence for a proposed multimillion-dollar tourism resort on Great Keppel Island off Yeppoon which could potentially create 1,500 new local jobs.
If this were not bad enough, the same Labor Party still has made no significant commitment in Queensland to support water infrastructure projects in Capricornia such as the Eden Bann and Rookwood weirs, which would lead to 2,100 new jobs in the Rockhampton region. Rumblings from Brisbane suggest that Queensland's state Labor cabinet are split on this issue, with many wanting to bed down with the Greens to secure future voting preferences instead of much-needed water projects. I ask the House this question: does that mean that a vote for Labor and a vote for the Greens in Capricornia equals no Eden Bann and Rookwood weirs?
All these points demonstrate a worrying attitude from the Labor Party in Capricornia, with a noticeable bent against creating jobs for local families. In contrast, I am fighting for large-scale projects; for water infrastructure, like Eden Bann and Rookwood; and for vital international free trade deals that spell jobs for Central Queenslanders.
As a member who is both listening and delivering, I will have plenty more to say on these matters at another time. For now, let me focus specifically on the FTA deal with China.
Headlines in The Australian newspaper scream that the Leader of the Opposition and his union backers are at bitter odds with the rest of their experienced political rank-and-file when it comes to a free trade deal between Australia and China. According to reports, Labor premiers Daniel Andrews, Jay Weatherill and other Labor voices like Bob Hawke, Andrew Barr and Simon Crean all back our coalition government's free trade deal with China, recognising that it will create jobs.
I note that it is a shame that Labor's federal candidate for Capricornia also does not support the deal, despite the views of more experienced ex-Labor prime ministers and foreign ministers who want to see it proceed. In fact, it is hypocritical of this Labor candidate, her federal party and her union backers to harp on about job creation initiatives when they themselves are standing in the way of free trade agreement that could potentially build new industries, increase our export trade in Central Queensland and create hundreds if not thousands of jobs across Queensland. Labor and the unions in Central Queensland cannot afford to ignore good advice from former ALP Prime Minister Bob Hawke on the subject of Australia's free trade deal with China. It is ironic that, while one of Australia's most prominent Labor prime ministers insist the deal must go ahead, the current ALP opposition leader and his union guards are deliberately scaring people by falsely claiming that thousands of Chinese workers will flood the country to steal Aussie jobs. Perhaps they did not see an article in the Herald Sun published online recently. The article states:
Bob Hawke has issued a stern warning to the Labor Party and the trade union movement not to oppose the China-Australia Free-Trade Agreement, arguing it is in the national interest that it be adopted.
"I am all in favour of it," Mr Hawke told The Australian. "The party must not go backwards on this issue — the party and the trade union movement. Talk of opposing it is just absolutely against Australia's best interests."
The report went on to state:
It is frightening to see Labor now siding with a xenophobic union campaign against a trade deal that will create jobs and wealth. Bill Shorten's Labor is a sick joke when compared to Bob Hawke's.
I challenge Labor's federal candidate for Capricornia to try to ignore Mr Hawke's powerful views and the potential for new jobs that could be created for Central Queensland families as a result of increased trade from the deal with China, particularly in our local beef and meat export sector.
Labor and union criticism of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is simply hypocritical. Despite well-publicised safeguards to protect Australian jobs, Labor and the unions continue to attack ChAFTA, stirring fears about an influx of foreign workers on 457 visas. This is completely hypocritical. Over the past 10 years the highest rates of 457 visa—when the figures topped 100,000 foreign workers per year—were all under Labor governments. The unions are running a political campaign against the coalition on this issue now, using television advertising, media stories and even telephone calls to voters in marginal electorates. But where was the union back when the Rudd and Gillard governments were bringing in foreign workers at record rates? We did not see anything like this current union campaign back then.
Immigration department figures show 457 visa worker numbers topped 100,000 in both 2007-08 and 2008-09, when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, and soared to more than 125,000 in both 2011-12 and 2012-13, when Julia Gillard was PM. In contrast to Labor, the work tests supplied under the possible China free trade deal will ensure 457 skilled work visas will only be issued if there are no Australians to do those jobs.
People in my electorate of Capricornia and particularly the city of Rockhampton are well aware of the positive role 457 visa holders can play. For example, how would our abattoirs find enough staff if not for 457 visa holders? In the beef capital of Australia they are making a very important contribution to the economy of the city and the region. Under ChAFTA, any Chinese applicants for a 457 temporary work visa will still need to have the requisite skills, qualifications and work experience to work safely in Australia. They also will have to obtain any required federal state, or territory licences or registration, including workplace health and safety, to commence work.
My Rockhampton based coalition colleague Senator Matthew Canavan asserts that, when Labor was in government, Labor itself facilitated foreign workers taking up jobs in Australia. Allow me to quote a statement from Queensland's new rising star. Senator Canavan, an economist, says:
In government, Labor won first prize on 457 visas. More were issued by them in history or since.
He goes on to state:
It was the Gillard Government in early 2012 – when now Labor leader Bill Shorten was Workplace Relations Minister – that green-lighted 1,700 overseas guest workers for Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill mine project under Labor’s Enterprise Migration Agreement scheme.
To quote another ex-Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam: it's time. It's time the Labor Party in this House and Labor's candidate for Capricornia acknowledged Bob Hawke's advice and backed Australia's free trade deal with China and job creation for Central Queenslanders.
As a member of parliament, I have found that older people in our society tend to be ignored to some extent. Quite often, seniors are thought of as being a burden. We constantly hear of the cost to our community of older Australians and the fact that they are a burden on our medical system. The stereotyping around older Australians is enormous. Instead of looking at what older Australians have contributed to our country this and other governments have tended to state that seniors are a burden. Far from it. In the other house, we are debating the victory in the Pacific. As we all know, our Second World War veterans were victorious in the Pacific. The Second World War veterans who stood up and fought for Australia are now our older Australians and many of them are still making enormous contributions to our society.
Any member who visits community organisations within their electorate—and I know that members on both sides of this parliament work very closely with community organisations—would know that the volunteers are mainly older people. Recently I was out doing Meals on Wheels. The couple I went out with were themselves retired, and they were going around delivering meals to other older people in the community. There are older people on every community board and in every community organisation. When it comes to child care, the number of hours of unpaid child care provided by senior Australians is enormous. If we were convert into a financial contribution to our economy the hours of volunteer work that older Australians do, we would discover that it is an enormous amount.
So I stand here today to speak for older Australians. I stand here today to argue that they deserve respect and acknowledgement for the work they have done to protect our country and to help it grow and thrive. In addition to that, if any business is smart, they will know that they need to provide services to older Australians. The northern part of Wyong Shire has set up a disability precinct and, coupled with that, they are catering for older Australians. They are encouraging to the area businesses and activities suitable for older Australians that will draw them to the area. They recognise that older Australians want to spend their money in areas where they can enjoy themselves, where there are cafes and walks and a good quality of life. And that is something we can offer people on the northern part of the Central Coast.
Every year, I hold a series of positive lifestyle seniors forums. Last Friday, I held my Belmont positive living and lifestyle forum for seniors. We had a variety of wonderful speakers providing information to help them remain fit and healthy and access all the wonderful services that are available in the community. I know that the electorate of Shortland is no different from other electorates. Every area has services and information that will improve the lives of senior Australians.
I hold four seniors forums a year. We started the year with a forum at Swansea, which was very successful. It was followed by a forum at Halekulani, which is on the Central Coast. As I said, the Belmont forum was last Friday, and I will be holding a seniors forum at Charlestown on 6 November. The first thing about these seniors forums is that there is no politics allowed; it is purely information; it is purely a venue where people can learn about what is available and ask questions of the many speakers who are there on the day. We kicked off on Friday with Judy Webb-Ryall, who is the coordinator of Stroke and Disability Information Hunter. She gave a fantastic presentation about the actions people can take to prevent stroke. She gave a fantastic expose of the causes of stroke and what to do in the case of a stroke. Stroke and Disability Information, or SADI, provides a lot of support for people in the community and Judy has been very active in this space for a number of years.
Judy Webb-Ryall was followed by the wonderful Deborah Moore, from the Heart Foundation. Deborah built on the information that was provided by Judy. She concentrated on healthy lifestyle, eating properly and exercising. Towards the end of her presentation, she got all 100 people in the room to do some exercises. They started off with a series of exercises on their chairs. Deborah demonstrated how easy it is to exercise and that you can exercise while sitting watching TV. It is all very good for your cardiovascular system. She finished by getting people to stand and do a few very simple exercises. Deborah was followed by one of our local chemists, Dimitri Pandoulis. Dimitri talked about how pharmacies can provide support for seniors. He talked about Webster packs and medical checks. He linked into Judy's presentation in relation to stroke, saying that he could do stroke tests, provide support in relation to stroke and also do continuous monitoring of blood pressure.
We then broke for lunch. After lunch Robyn McLean, from Centrelink, spoke to those in attendance at the forum. This was a really interesting session, because a number of people had questions about the pension. Once again, it was not political; this was a forum where people could ask the questions they were concerned about. Robyn was followed by Australian Hearing, represented by Linda Brindle. She talked in depth about Australian Hearing, about how important it is for people to be able to hear what is being said and about things that they can do to improve their hearing, including getting a hearing aid. Actually, one gentleman who came along to the seniors forum walked up to me and said, 'I've gotta go home, I forgot to put my hearing aid in.' We moved him down the front and he stayed for the day! The forum finished with Lake Macquarie City Council's wonderful Jenny Linton-Webb, who talked about all of the activities and services that Lake Macquarie council provides for seniors—computer courses, a blue dot service for bins and many other activities.
As well as having speakers at the forums, we also have a series of information tables. At the Belmont forum, there were people from the Belmont community garden, Computer Pals, the Heart Foundation, Australian Hearing, Lake Macquarie council and, of course, Centrelink. It was a great day and it did what it should have done—that is, provide to people information that is hard to access.
I think every member in this place will have a community club, or a number of them, that they support in their own electorates. There is no doubt that one of the great challenges for these not-for-profit enterprises is to be able to continue to offer brilliant, high-quality service to local people and, at the same time, stable employment to their staff. This issue came to a head over the last week with a disagreement between the unions and sporting club in my electorate over the wage agreement that they were implementing. The club that I am referring to is a not-for-profit community club. It is important to note that it is not a multinational corporation or a for-profit entity. So one would expect that they would be assiduous in applying the rules and the laws of the land in a wage agreement, and I am pleased to say that they have done just that. This club exists solely to serve its members, and that would be echoed all around this country.
In this case, our sporting club in the suburb of Capalaba reinvests about $3 million each year into the region, obviously through a combination of letting out the venue, pokies, meals and bar takings. The club has about 60 staff, around 38 of whom are involved in the food, beverage and gaming area, and they are all local people. I think anyone who is elected to the federal parliament, a state parliament or even a council should do absolutely everything they can to either support a community club or bend over backwards to find an expeditious resolution when there is some sort of disagreement. Sadly, that is not what happened here. The people of Capalaba ended up with a unionist, a state Labor MP, who thought it would be a great thing to engage this club head-on when one staff member out of the 38 was unhappy with the wage agreement.
I will never traduce or impugn the motives of any employee; where a person is unhappy with a wage agreement I am sure there are extremely good grounds for that. It is not for me, another MP, a councillor or a mayor to adjudicate on these matters. We have a Fair Work Commission, legislated by the Labor Party in 2009 and further legislation in 2012. We have commissioners at the Fair Work Commission appointed mostly by the Labor Party. In fact, the commissioner who considered this very wage agreement at the Capalaba Sports Club was none other than a New South Wales union representative appointed to the commission by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. If anyone could give fair and unfettered consideration to a wage agreement for the workers you would think it would be the New South Wales union nominee to the Fair Work Commission who considered and approved that wage agreement.
Any community club that innocently takes on a fully approved Fair Work Commission agreement would expect and anticipate that it had been through extensive assessment and that, looking at a number of case studies, no employee could possibly be any worse off under that agreement. That is the point of an agreement; and you take it to the commission and get it approved to ensure that workers would not be any worse off than if they had worked the award wages. That is specifically what occurred in late 2014 when the HospitalityX agreement was considered and passed. These community clubs do not have a huge and elaborate byzantine organisation to run them being paid large amounts of money. No, they are run by a very small and dedicated staff. They do not have a full-time human resources person working out whether the minutes went out before midnight on a particular date. But they do adhere to the law and, when it comes to wage agreements, they seek a legal opinion.
What I have here is extraordinary correspondence and legal advice that goes to the nature of the HospitalityX agreement. It says:
I have now had an opportunity to review the decision of FWC in approving the agreement.
I note the approval application came before a senior member of the Fair Work Commission.
In reading the approval decision the member of the Fair Work Commission did not express a concern with making the decision. Equally, it is my experience that if a member of the Commission had a concern this concern would be raised and need to be dealt with before a decision—
an approval—
is issued.
On this basis, this legal view had 'no trouble in recommending the authenticity and legitimacy of this agreement'. What more can you expect of a community club other than to abide by the Labor Party law of the day, legislated established, staffed and appointed by the Labor Party? What more can a club do? They get a second legal opinion, like you imagine they would. A second law firm looking at this agreement was approved, in November 2014, to cover HospitalityX and any of its employees whose work would otherwise have been covered under that relevant award in 2010.
The agreement allows for employees to nominate a spread of hours, on a range of days, in which they are willing to work. This means that the employee can elect to perform work in non-standard times, like evenings, weekends and public holidays, in lieu of higher payments that render them no worse overall. Most of us have been in this situation. For an individual staff member, I have the utmost sympathy if they are not convinced that they may be not better off overall. It is only fair to read some of those concerns in a de-identified manner. The concerns are, effectively, based on the amount of time given to consider the deal.
While memos were going out to staff on a regular basis for two meetings, a week apart, there is no guarantee that every one of those meetings was noted. There is no guarantee, necessarily, that there was an agenda typed out and, apparently, at the meeting there may not have been satisfactory minutes taken. It should be of the gravest concern for members, here, that minutes were not taken at every meeting. There was some confusion about the operation of a series of clauses, which I will not bother people with right now, but, most concerning, is the sense that there might have been some undue influence or coercion.
The sense was that as time was ticking and there was an effort to get this new wage agreement in place there was inadequate time for this one staff member, out of 38, to fully contemplate the ramifications. Every staff member deserves that time. In the end, what it broke down to was a last-minute letter—at close of business, Friday—being sent out, saying: 'I am assuming I will be working on Monday but am still not completely sure. I want a written response. Otherwise, I will be turning up on Monday and anticipating that I will be coming to work.'
As I understand it, they did not come to work on that day. I have the utmost sympathy but it will not always be possible to please everyone—not even in this chamber, if that is possible. In the end we have something called a commission. The commission steps back and says, 'Look at it from the point of view of the worker and the point of view of the employer,' and we can have confidence in that that commission. A great thing about that is that as a parliamentarian we can support the law, but if you do not like the law you can go and change it, in this place. You call up the commission and you attempt to appeal or you revisit.
These are all options available the unions. But no, what we have had is trucks with billboards running up and down my electorate saying I have my hands on the penalty rates. As I pointed out to the Labor unions, the deal was approved by the Unions New South Wales nominee to the commission appointed by the Rudd government, under a commission that was established by the Labor government. I do not mind being mistaken for a New South Welshman; I can live with that. But I am certainly not Labor and I am no friend of Kevin Rudd, politically, so thank you for the flattery but you have the wrong guy.
What we need, in the end, is the ability as MPs to work within the law. We are actually employed to change the law if we do think the law is right. But, as a state Labor MP, you are not paid by public resources to go around the law. If you do not like the law you can change it. It is an option that has not been taken up by my state Labor colleague who thought it would be a fine idea to put on a rally—picket; call it what you want—outside the community sporting club. He brought all of his friends from all over Queensland. All of the unionites came and gathered around the club on the day we had our city's festival. If there were to be any TV coverage, it is was all of Don's mates, wasn't it? They were from all over Queensland, doing the union thing, while the other 37 staff just tried to get on and run a community club for our people.
In the end, there has been appalling harassment of staff in uniform. I would never say that that was the fault of an individual MP, but just remember that it is one thing to kick the can along the road but another to say you do not intend to wake up the dogs. You need to think about the implications of your actions, stand behind a community club and appreciate the importance of looking after an employee. Above all, understand that the rule of law, the presence of a commission—that we established as the Fair Pay Commission, renamed, rebadged, reconfigured—is the law of the land. If you have a problem with that there is no point in pointing at the Liberal Party; you need to go and talk to the commission. If you are confused by the laws, you can talk to an ombudsman. You stick within the law as a state MP. If you have a problem with that, the last thing you do is go around it.
Today I want to talk about second language learning in Australia. Frankly, learning to sing 'brilla brilla piccola stella' or to count to ju in Japanese is really not going to cut the mustard in the global marketplace of the 21st century. We keep bleating on about the importance of a second language and many worthy statements are made, but the fact is, with a few notable exceptions, we are going backwards in the fight against monolingualism.
Last weekend, I was in Indonesia in Yogyakarta, a university town, and I had been asked to speak specifically on the topic of Indonesian learning at the ACICIS conference, which is in Yogyakarta. ACICIS is the Australian Consortium for 'In-Country' Indonesian Studies. It is celebrating its 20th anniversary—obviously, an enormous achievement. I will, at a subsequent occasion, talk about the specific issue of learning Indonesian, which has been of some concern to me for some time, but, as for today, in the course of preparing for that I was quite appalled with the figures that I discovered in terms of second language learning generally in Australia and, indeed, how it is going backwards.
Only 13 per cent of year 12 students nationally take a second language. Thirty years ago, that was 40 per cent. So we have gone from where we were 30 years ago, when we were less involved in the global marketplace and had 40 per cent of year 12 students taking a second language, to now, when we are down to 13 per cent. I have to say that in my home state of Western Australia we have a particularly shameful performance. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel; we are, in fact, at only six per cent. Six per cent of year 12 students are studying a second language.
If we start looking at primary schools, we see that there has been a steady decline over the last five years in language learning. If we just compare the 2010 and 2013 figures—and this was included in a recent WA government report—we see that six per cent fewer students are studying a language in Catholic primary schools and 15 per cent fewer are studying a language in government primary schools over that four-year period.
In fact, it is actually getting worse in Western Australia. We have changed the funding model and, from this year on, primary and district high schools will no longer actually receive any LOTE staff allowance for the study of a second language. So what we have seen over the last year is quite a number of schools dropping out, with quite a number of government schools taking the decline even further. I understand from my discussions with primary school principals that we are going to see this deteriorate even further next year, as fewer of them are finding that they can afford the cost and overcome the difficulty in finding teachers in this area. Fundamentally, it is all getting just too hard and primary schools are electing to move out of this space altogether.
Of course, this is compounded bizarrely in Western Australia, as this is one language learning area that the state government does not require schools to report on. Schools are, in terms of their performance, measured against a number of criteria, but there is not one on the learning of a second language, so you can see that there is a very clear message going out to schools in Western Australia that this is not an important area of learning. That is quite terrible.
I want to contrast this with what we are seeing in Victoria, which had also been seeing a decline, but they have really got behind this project. Since 2013 they have seen a considerable increase in the number of students studying language at a primary level. We see a greater emphasis on that going right through the schools in Victoria. As many as 19 per cent of their year 12 secondary-school students are still learning a language. It is not an internationally stellar figure but, by Australian standards, it is good.
I want to stress how bad this is—what a dreadful thing we are doing to the next generation. We are moving into a world that is globally competitive. We are entering into free trade agreements, bringing down barriers, seeing jobs moved offshore and people having to compete for jobs internationally. If you are an engineer in Australia it is very likely that the project you are competing for will be in an international market. We have relied on the fact that we are English speakers. We think that is okay: 'The international language of the world is English so we as native speakers of English do not have to bother about that.'
I will quote the Languages in crisisreport,prepared by the Group of Eight Australian universities. It is completely correct and I see this happening, very clearly, as I travel around the world. It says:
Monolingual English native speakers are already losing the advantage in their own language because English language skills are becoming a basic skill around the world.
We all know that because we travel around and see it. It states:
With English now part of the school curriculum in many countries from Europe to Asia, Australians are increasingly competing for jobs with people who are just as competent in English as they are in their own native language and possibly one or two more. It has been observed that the London business world prefers graduates from European universities rather than British institutions because they speak English as well as at least one other language, and often two or three.
It continues:
Mandarin Chinese is the most widely spoken language in the world and English merely competes with Spanish, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, Chinese Wu and Portuguese for second to eighth place …
Indeed:
The dominance of English on the internet is also decreasing. The proportion of internet users with English as a native language has declined from 51.3 per cent in 2000 to 32 per cent in 2005 …
We are being overtaken by the rest of the world. Let us look at what is happening in Finland, a high performing country in this area. Every student studies a second language right through their high-school education. Thirty-four per cent of students studying a third language and around 11 per cent study a fourth language.
In our performance, we are not getting this right. We have had numerous stop-starts at a policy level, and we can criticise both sides of politics on this. We had the Nelson strategy, in place from 1994 to 2002, that was very successful. Language specialists across Australia will tell you that was a game changer—until Brendan Nelson, for some reason, abandoned it in 2002, saying that it was no longer necessary and that we already had this right. Then we had the Rudd government committed, in 2008 to 2009, to a new project, the National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program. That was apparently very successful but, I will have to say, it was the Labor government that did not continue that funding beyond 2012.
We have had a series of policy stops and starts but, at the end of the day, I put this proposition to you: we are short-changing the future generation. We are living in a fool's paradise. We have to get on top of this issue if our kids and grandkids are going to have any chance of taking their rightful place in the globally competitive world market.
I would like to speak on the educational opportunities in naval shipbuilding. Every South Australian member and senator has been lobbying very hard for defence work for our state. The recently announced continuous-build strategy for naval surface vessels gives decades of certainty to our shipbuilding workforce and to industry and is very good news for South Australia. The coalition government is bringing forward the future frigates program to 2020, three years earlier than scheduled under Labor. We will also bring forward the construction of offshore patrol vessels by two years with a continuous onshore build commencing in 2018. Bringing forward the offshore patrol vessels and future frigates will preserve up to 1,000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost and will guarantee up to 2½ thousand long-term shipbuilding jobs, primarily in South Australia.
These projects, worth some $39 billion, will be good for economic growth, and the work on the future frigates is a strong vote of confidence in South Australia's shipbuilding capability. Navy capability is also mooted to be the centrepiece of the upcoming Defence white paper. Beyond the frigates and the patrol vessels, there will be other projects in the future, not least of which is the future submarines. A continuous-build strategy for naval surface vessels means there will be a need to ensure a supply of skilled workers to design and build those vessels. If South Australia is going to take best advantage of the opportunities in naval shipbuilding, we need to start looking at what we can do at an educational level to prepare for those workforce needs.
The Canadian experience is illustrative. In 2010 the Canadian government announced a new national shipbuilding procurement strategy that shifted naval shipbuilding from a project-by-project basis to a long-term enterprise. This strategy identified Canada's future naval shipbuilding procurements and divided them into large and small vessels. Two shipyards were competitively selected to build the large vessels, with smaller vessels and the significant maintenance, refit and repair contracts then available to all Canadian shipyards. In 2014 a maritime security program workshop specifically identified the levels of human capital that the NSPS would require. Key takeaways included the need for greater cooperation among private, public and government stakeholders; improvements in training technology to incorporate web-based training, distance learning and simulation; and the development of centres of excellence in shipbuilding.
Since the Canadian shipbuilding strategy was announced, industry stakeholders have incorporated education and skills training into their organisations. Skills and training related to the industry are also promoted within a variety of Canadian colleges and universities. Canadian universities have been able to gain millions in industry support for their naval architecture and maritime engineering higher degrees. The lesson is this: by making naval shipbuilding a long-term enterprise, Canada has been able to plan ahead and put into place education systems that ensure that it has the skilled workforce it needs to support that shipbuilding. With Australia heading down a similar path with its continuous-build strategy, we should be planning to do the same.
A number of analyses have been done on the defence workforce and the skills needed for the future—most notably, in 2012, the Building Australia's defence supply capabilities report and, last year, the Defence industry South Australia—workforce strategy for 2014 to 2020. While both of these reports focused on the policies and programs of their day, they include some common ground on how to enhance and continue the productivity of the defence engineering workforce: (1) promoting the defence industry as a career option and raising the profile of pathways to defence industry; (2) ensuring alignment of existing STEM programs in schools, possibly by an audit undertaken between Defence and the Office of the Chief Scientist; (3) having better engagement between the defence industry and educational providers in the case of STEM needs, including the use of work placement programs to raise awareness and develop foundational skills; (4) focusing on upskilling existing workers, whether through vocational education and training programs or through specific partnerships with higher education providers; and (5) developing clear planning metrics to prioritise skills that are in demand or decline and to ease the cycle of work as well as supporting the transition of workers from other industries with similar but not identical skill sets.
There is a recognition that forward planning needs to be done and education and training put in place in order to provide the skilled workforce for naval shipbuilding. With South Australia slated to undertake a significant amount of naval shipbuilding and maintenance work, we should be putting systems in place at all three levels of education—that is at the school level, at the vocational educational and training level and at the higher education level—to make sure we can supply that workforce. There are already a number of programs in place designed to assist people to develop the skills necessary for a career in the defence industry.
At the secondary school level there is the South Australian Advanced Technology Schools Pathways Program. This is aimed at introducing students to the skills required for defence industry careers, with a focus on encouraging students to study mathematics, science and engineering. It aims to increase the pool of young people ready to move from school into further education and apprenticeships, internships, scholarships and part-time work-study combinations. The increase in professional and vocational pathways will provide greater workforce capacity to support the growing defence industries in South Australia. There are 19 schools involved in this program. The lead school for the southern district is Aberfoyle Park High School in my electorate. Funding for this program has been extended for the current financial year but will be evaluated as part of the Defence white paper review.
When we look at the area of vocational education and training we see that, while there are a number of engineering qualifications offered at TAFEs, there are currently no specific defence engineering or fabrication courses offered either in South Australia or across the country. So there is a real opportunity here in the area of vocational education and training, whether it is done through TAFE or whether it is done through an industry collaboration, which is what is done in civil construction or in the motor trades area. There is a real opportunity to make sure that there is a strong pathway on the VET side.
Similarly when we look at the university side what we see is that many of the universities are actually down-scaling their involvement in the area of naval engineering and maritime architecture. The Australian Maritime College in Hobart offers a wide range of maritime engineering courses and allows for collaborative degrees with Flinders University. Flinders offers a Bachelor of Engineering (Naval Architecture) in collaboration with the AMC but that is marked as having no future intake as of 1 January this year. The University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide both offer bachelor-level engineering qualifications but none with a naval or defence specialisation. The University of Adelaide offers a Master of Marine Engineering at the postgraduate level. The Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan noted that as of 2013 only the University of Queensland, the University of South Australia, ADFA and the RMIT offered higher education courses in systems engineering to support the defence engineering workforce. As of 2015 ADFA still offers this course, while the University of Queensland has reduced it from a separate masters degree to a major within its Master of Engineering Science, and the University of South Australia qualification is no longer taking new intakes.
So when you look at the landscape you see that at a school level the Advanced Technology Schools Pathways Program seems to be a very good program and you do have schools like the Heights School which have a very specific focus on defence industry, but its ongoing status is questionable after June 2016. There may be an opportunity to have something like an Australian Technical College—the old Howard government program—really focusing specifically on making a strong pathway into defence industry. At the VET level there are no dedicated offerings, either in South Australia or elsewhere. And at a university level Flinders appears to be wrapping up its degree, leaving the Master of Marine Engineering at the University of Adelaide the only dedicated offering. We have made a big announcement on future frigates. There should be a big announcement on future submarines next year. There are lots of opportunities for South Australia at the school level, at the vocational education and training level and at the higher education level to seize the opportunities of the jobs that will be there for the future and make sure that there are strong pathways for students coming through.
I rise to talk about round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which was undertaken by this government. Along with so many other members of parliament, I was asked to nominate three priority locations for funding. In my electorate, I nominated Rhynie, Sevenhill and Watervale. I know that all three of these towns have very serious black spot issues. I have driven through them many times on my way to the Clare Valley, mainly for work.
Dr Southcott interjecting—
I thank the member for Boothby for referring to Clare's other obvious assets; however, I live in the Barossa, so I had better give them a plug as well. There are very serious mobile black spots, and of course at least one senator, Senator Sean Edwards, would know that well too because he used to live in Clare and has no doubt travelled through that area and had his calls interrupted. That is why it is so disappointing to find the government's response to this program. We found that over 80 per cent of the new mobile phone towers announced are in Liberal and National seats. That led The Advertiser to come out with the headline 'Mobile funding black hole "a bloody disgrace"'. That was in The Advertiser on 4 September this year. It pointed out that South Australia received just $2.5 million of a national fund of $100 million—well below our population and well below, I might add, the needs. This should not just concern Labor members from South Australia, because there are so many other rural members, the majority of whom are Liberal members of parliament, from South Australia. That has led federal Labor to basically write to the Australian National Audit Office to request a formal review of this program. Of course this affects constituents out there in places like rural South Australia. The Southern Mallee mayor, Robert Sexton, said the program was a 'bloody disgrace' in which marginal seats benefited. He said:
"We hammered (local Liberal MP) Tony Pasin through local government" ... "I give him credit, he battled his heart out … and (I) honestly believed he was going to get more than we got, but we basically got nothing."
Well, I think that speaks for Mr Pasin's lobbying effort, but it also speaks to the nature of this government—that it would do that to its own supporters. Indeed, there are so many people who, I think in good faith, north of Tarlee vote for the Liberal Party because they expect it to be the voice of rural Australia. What they find, of course, is it is nothing of the sort and that, in actual fact, it is simply so desperate to maintain its grasp on office that it is prepared basically to turn its back on its most loyal supporters.
I would also like to point out that on 2 September The Advertiser had an editorial which points out that mobile phone networks are indeed a vital tool for business, for travel and for emergency communication and that South Australia attracted dollars only for 11 locations when the federal government handed out its black spot funding. In contrast, other states had 488 towers funded, including 31 in Tasmania. The editorial points out:
The Communications Department is refusing to reveal why these spots were chosen, arguing doing so would damage the relationship between the Minister and Department.
I think that tells you everything about the nature of this program. The Advertiser's coverage is a very damning indictment of the government. I know what the government will say. It will say, 'The state government didn't stump up half the cash.' Of course this ignores the fact that telecommunications has always been a federal responsibility. In any event, even if a state government is inactive in this area, it does not give the federal government an excuse to walk away from its responsibilities.
Mr Grant Hovey, who is the chairman of the Rhynie Improvement Scheme, pointed out to me in a letter that poor mobile phone service has hampered an emergency response in Rhynie. He wrote:
In the early hours of the morning of Thursday 20th August, a sad and very serious sequel to my recent article on 'no mobile service' was played out on the main street in Rhynie.
At approximately 12.30 am, a passing motorist came across the scene of a horrific accident, involving a car and stobie pole, in the main street of Rhynie. The motorist tried to use their mobile phone, but as there is no mobile reception in Rhynie, the phone indicated "emergency calls only", but 000 was not connected through.
The letter pointed out that they had to walk up the driveway of a nearby house—and you can imagine that at 12.30 in the morning—to access a landline. Of course, that slows down all of the emergency services which I know would have come. The local CFS brigade and emergency services quickly arrived on the scene. That gives you an indication of the importance of this program to country towns like Rhynie, Sevenhill and Watervale and it gives an indication that this government really does have to improve its game in the administration of this program. We can only hope that round 2 is better administered than round 1.
I would also like to talk about one of the programs that was talked about a lot in the last parliament, but it does not get much mention these days, except in a negative fashion from those opposite: GP superclinics. As always in public life, you tend to hear about complaints—the member for Boothby probably has a few—but you very rarely hear about successes. The location of the UniHealth Playford GP Superclinic on Curtis Road, Munno Para, is undoubtedly a success. Shirley Harris and Geoff Pope are two members of the community who lobbied me very diligently to get that service and were involved in all of the community consultations. Basically, they have asked me to talk about their service and what it has meant to them.
There were no doctors on the Peachey Belt, which is a very disadvantaged community in transition—the site of one of the biggest urban renewal projects in the country. Shirley Harris and Geoff Pope recorded in the letter that, through their discussions, attendance at the clinic is at a record of 7,858 as at May 2015 and averages about 110 care plans and assessments per month. The letter said:
The GP Super Clinic now has 13 doctors on staff, 14 Allied Health providers and also provides psychology services with five psychologists and up to four psychology post grad students. Additionally the Playford Immunisation clinic is now being run from Unihealth every Thursday.
Next door to the GP superclinic is a training facility for university students. They now have an additional relationship with Paralowie High School and Sir Mark Oliphant College, allowing healthcare professionals to transfer skills and competencies to students who are looking for a career in that area. It has been recorded as a resounding success with the local community. In the letter they said:
The ability to access everything they need from first consultation through to blood tests and care plans ensures that this multi-use facility is adequately utilised.
They thanked me for my representations to the Rudd government and the consultations that were undertaken with the local community to ensure that the UniHealth Playford GP Superclinic was a success. They now talk about it being part of the 'fabric of the north'. The success of this GP superclinic is very important to record because superclinics have been talked down and sometimes you have a bit of competition in this place. We heard the member for Boothby earlier talking about Australian technical colleges. The one in the City of Playford was very successfully transitioned to the Catholic Education program. No program is without its faults, but programs like the GP superclinics, where appropriately placed, did a lot of good, and that is certainly the case of the one on Curtis Road, Munno Para. Its success should be a model for the future. It gives an indication to the parliament that communities like the Peachey Belt deserve good health care, and that sometimes means that there has to be government investment in that health care. I would like to finish by thanking Shirley Harris and Geoff Pope for writing to me and for making me truly aware of the success of that particular clinic.
In accordance with standing order 192B, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:44