Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
A proportion of petitions received by the committee each year are assessed to be noncompliant with the standing orders. These out-of-order petitions constituted approximately 33 per cent of the total number of petitions received in the last financial year. This is unfortunate as these petitions cannot be considered in the House’s normal petitions process and end up as dead-end documents, mostly returned to the original petitioner if known.
Petitioners who send petitions which receive an out-of-order assessment receive advice as to why the petition could not be considered valid and also information on how to prepare a petition which would meet the House’s requirements. Of course some matters will never meet the House’s requirements because the matters fall outside the power and jurisdiction of the House—or because the matter requested is illegal or incites illegal behaviour. But some petitions fail on correct content and formatting only.
It is worth noting, however, that even if a petitioner were to prepare a replacement petition they may have lost the momentum of their original signature gathering. For example, they may have missed a critical event or anniversary and/or the petition issue may have been time critical. So reducing the number of first-time out-of-order petitions is still very important. As a result, the committee devotes resources to its website and to publications available in both members’ offices and the secretariat. It also provides the direct assistance of the secretariat in interpreting the petitioning guidelines. Even so, despite the committee’s best endeavours, not all petitioners will utilise these.
In some cases it is obvious that the petitioner has prepared a petition with complete ignorance of any requirements for petitioning the House, as the document does not meet the House standing orders on multiple counts. And some petitions are sent to the committee out of order in spite of petitioners knowing the rules, as some petitioners think the committee has discretionary decision-making power. Of course this is not the case and these petitions will be certified as not meeting requirements and returned to the petitioner.
Most out-of-order petitions contain what the committee would describe as common mistakes of petitioning the House—generally in isolation. Standing order 204 is one of the primary standing orders outlining the content and format requirements of petitioning the House. Most of the conditions are quite straightforward; however, a couple of the standing order requirements cause consternation for some prospective petitioners. Today I will outline the most frequently observed errors and omissions and why a petition is invalid if this occurs.
Whilst preparing a petition should not be excessively difficult, there are sound reasons why rules governing petitioning are necessary. For example, standing order 204 requires petitions to be addressed to the House of Representatives, yet one of the more frequent reasons for a petition to be out of order is not addressing the petition to the House and to the House only. Similarly, the request for action must be to the House—and not to other people or entities.
A petition is a one-off document prepared for the attention of the House’s elected representatives. After a petition is tabled, it becomes a House document and therefore cannot be tabled elsewhere—for example, in the Senate—nor can it be forwarded elsewhere. Therefore, it must be addressed only to the House. If the House is receiving the document then it should also be responding to the request.
Another common mistake is where the terms exceed 250 words. The terms are, by standing order definition, ‘the reasons for petitioning and the request of the House’. Although 250 words may seem overly succinct, it is done for good reason: to ensure the matter is able to be concisely conveyed to the House and to provide a standardised approach so no petition is favoured over another. Similarly, letters, affidavits and any other documents, including photos, do not form part of a petition and will be removed before tabling.
The other repeatedly observed mistake I will mention today is submitting a petition without any identifying principal petitioner or contact details on the first page of the petition. Per standing order 205, the first page of a petition must state the full name and address of a clearly identified individual who organised the petition—the principal petitioner. The principal petitioner must sign the page using their handwritten original signature, unless the petition is finalised with the common seal of a corporation. This rule ensures that the milestones of the petition, including any response, can be conveyed to the principal petitioner. By signing this page, the principal petitioner also endorses the petition as being prepared with genuine intent. Please note that what I have outlined does not cover the full list of reasons why a petition may be assessed as being out of order, merely the more frequently encountered.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I thank Andrew Wilkie, as so many times in the past, for being my seconder. It is good that there are at least two of us in this place. The Snowy Mountains would not now be in Australian hands if it had not been for the presence of small-party independents. It was an issue that, ultimately, everyone changed their mind on, but if we had not been here, there would have been no change of mind. If we are talking about iconic symbols of Australia, it would be hard to go past the Snowy Mountains Scheme, yet it was decided unanimously in this place—by both sides of the House—to sell it. It is one of the 28 greatest achievements in world history, right up there with the Panama Canal and the Tennessee Valley Authority projects.
What touched off the public notoriety on this issue was an action taken by a company that owns the trademark rights to WaltzingMatilda. Whilst it is not our national anthem, it most certainly is our national song. If you use it in Australia without permission you could be sued, and this company has had the temerity to sue not one but two people in Australia. That is as has been reported in the media. John Williamson—and we refer to this as 'the John Williamson bill'—brought this issue to the attention of his fellow Australians by saying, 'I will sing it and I will not pay any royalties to anyone; I will go to jail before I am told that I can't sing our national song.' At the present moment, the laws of this land say that you are not allowed to sing our national song. It may well be that, if some company buys the words 'Ned Kelly', we will not be allowed to use the words 'Ned Kelly'—or the armour—in Australia without their permission. A boomerang could be another example.
This bill is absolutely necessary if we do not want our cultural heritage being owned by foreigners. It is bad enough that 83 per cent of our resources are foreign owned—and people in this place allowed that to happen. I might even say that people in this place, on both sides of the House, promoted it happening. They call it foreign investment; I call it selling out your country. I do not know of anything that has been developed in recent times by foreign investment. All the things that I know of which have taken place in Australia have been precipitated by Australian entrepreneurs and Australian risk taking.
Poland did not have a government for 600 years. It was ruled by foreign monarchs and Poland was served very badly by that arrangement. I think there would be few people in this House who do not know the very unpleasant history of Ireland under English rule. In the case of Cromwell, it was reputed that some three million people died—depending on who you want to listen to on this—or left the land. One-third of the population died, in part as a result of policy and in part as the result of contemptible neglect. So how did Ireland win its freedom? How did Poland win its freedom? Both of them were under foreign control or rule—whatever word you would like to use—for 600 or 700 years. In the case of Poland, a Polish pope very aggressively asserted the relationship with the Catholic Church—as a Polish phenomenon, as opposed to a Russian communist phenomenon. In the case of Ireland, there was an Irish cultural revival. It was pretty hard for England to ban Ireland from singing their national songs, but that is what the Irish did—they started singing their national songs and people came together.
The great Australian preacher—one of the truly great Australians—Tim Costello always talks about the little spot in northern Italy that has the most successful economic development recorded in recent European history. All sorts of people flew in to find out what the hell was going on there and they found out that the reason for this tremendous economic success was a choral society. People came together and actually talked and communicated, but that is not exactly what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is our cultural identity. John Grey Gorton was probably the person who resurrected that identity. For all his shortcomings, he introduced the Australian film industry and he introduced the requirement that you had to have a certain amount of Australian content on television and in various other media outlets. He put a lot of money into getting the Australian film industry going and an awful lot of emphasis on Australia asserting itself as a different entity.
If we are submerged in the culture of the United States, then we are submerged economically and in every other way—and it does not serve the interests of this country. There was a famous conversation, which has gone into the history books, between the Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, and the then President of the United States, George Bush Sr. Prime Minister Keating said, 'President, we would like you to give our Australian farmers a fair go; we do not get a fair go off you with your trade laws'. George Bush said, 'I am the President of the United States; it is my business to look after the farmers of the United States', and then moved on to another topic. Would to heaven that our Prime Ministers asserted our aggressive Australianism! But that has to start with our own cultural identity awareness, and we have still have some problems there.
I am no raving republican, but I am deeply embarrassed when I pull out an Australian coin and I find an English lady on it. She is a lovely lady—and I understand that the concept of having something beyond the political brawl which we call democracy is important—but the problem is that that lady is English. She is not Australian. One side of my own family is very English. But the idea of us being British cost us dearly in the Second World War. Firstly, it precipitated, to some degree, the Japanese going into the war. Secondly, we were left completely bereft of any ability to defend ourselves—because we thought we were British and that, being British, the British would come out here and save us. That side of my family that was terribly English—the hatred of England was palpable in any conversation with anyone from that generation who had been around during the Second World War.
We need to assert the fact that we are a different country and our interests are not served by the interests of our great brother, the United States. I personally have always said that we will go along with them, but that is not incompatible with Australia asserting its own independent interest.
I think there would have been few Australians who felt that Australia's interests were served by giving the western half of New Guinea to Indonesia. I have gone on the record many times praising our nearest neighbours and advocating the building of a bridge of friendship with them. But it never fitted and it was certainly not in the interests of this country for that action to occur—but America wanted it to occur, so that is what we did. We should never have gone to war with Indonesia, but the interests of Britain, Royal Dutch Shell and Sarawak led us to war. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
Before I second the bill, I apologise to you and the House for my substandard attire today, but an airline has lost my bag. Hopefully it will catch up with me shortly.
It is something we have all experienced.
I appreciate your understanding, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to second the honourable member for Kennedy's bill and I reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) places on the record that:
(a) under the previous Government, at the time of the last election just 2 per cent of premises across Australia could access the National Broadband Network (NBN); and
(b) since the election the NBN rollout has ramped up significantly and today around one in ten premises can access the NBN and under the NBN’s new Corporate Plan, by June 2018, three in four premises will have access to the NBN;
(2) notes that:
(a) the NBN’s 2016-2018 Corporate Plan reveals that a full fibre to the premises (FTTP) NBN could not be completed until 2026 at the earliest and could be as late as 2028—six to eight years later than the current Government’s plan; and
(b) the NBN 2016-2018 Corporate Plan reveals that a full FTTP NBN would cost between $20 and $30 billion dollars more than the current Government’s plan; and
(3) recognises that it is essential to deliver fast broadband to Australians sooner—not force Australians with no or poor broadband to wait more than a decade for the NBN
Across Australia, and particularly in my electorate of Roberson on the New South Wales Central Coast, the NBN rollout is speeding up and more families and businesses are connecting to superfast broadband. In fact, since the last election, the NBN rollout has ramped up significantly. Until that point, despite all the fanfare and the $6 billion of taxpayers' money spent under the former Labor government—and despite the great big red button that was pushed in my electorate in the lead-up to the September 2013 election—just two per cent of premises across Australia could access the NBN at the time of the election, including just over 200 premises connected and using a service in my electorate of Robertson.
In contrast, today in Robertson we have a massive 67,300 premises either ready for service, under construction or on the rollout plan up until December next year. That includes 12,100 homes and businesses that are ready for service and another 55,200 that can expect it to be connected in coming months. It is an example of what is happening right across Australia today. Areas that are using superfast broadband include suburbs in my electorate such as Gosford, North Gosford, West Gosford, Point Frederick, East Gosford, parts of Springfield and some premises in Narara. In coming months we are expecting more than 33,000 more premises to be added in another 27 suburbs. These include part or all of Point Clare, Koolewong, Tascott, Bensville, Blackwall, Booker Bay, Daleys Point, Davistown, Empire Bay, Ettalong Beach, Green Point, Hardys Bay, Horsefield Bay, Kilcare, Kilcare Heights, parts of Kincumber, Patonga, Pearl Beach, Phegans Bay, Pretty Beach, Saratoga, St Huberts Island, Umina Beach, Wagstaffe, Woy Woy, Woy Woy Bay and Yattalunga—all this in just two years. Construction will also start before the end of the year in another 13,300 homes and businesses and another eight suburbs on top of this, while another 8,600 premises are on the rollout plan for construction to start in the first half of next year.
With the NBN rollout speeding up across the Central Coast, I am holding a series of listening posts in my electorate, right across the community. We started them last month. It is a fantastic thing to hear from people about their expectations, about their desires for superfast broadband. We have held them at the Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk at Umina Beach and we also spoke to residents of Hardys Bay, Kilcare and Wagstaffe at the Hardys Bay Club. I am really looking forward to returning home from parliament this week to listen to residents of Copacabana, where construction is well underway, this Friday at the Alligai Bay Cafe between 2 pm and 4 pm. We are also off to Macmasters Beach. On 24 September we will be at Loo Loo's Coffee Shack between 10 am and midday. We are holding a listening post at Gosford on Saturday, 3 October from 11 am till 1 pm in the wonderful new-look Imperial Centre and will also be at the Davistown RSL on 6 October from 11 am till 1 pm.
We are doing these events, not just in these locations but in many locations around the electorate, because we hear so many stories about how people want to connect to faster internet. For example, Vince from Pearl Beach was telling me that the internet is so slow in his community at the moment that he brings his wireless mobile device home after a long day at work to be able to access the internet. I am pleased to say that work started in Pearl Beach in December last year and residents of Pearl Beach should be able to access this service of the NBN early next year. I am really looking forward to heading out to the Pearl Beach Community Hall next month to hear more stories.
I will give an example of just how a faster rollout can benefit my community and communities across Australia. NIB have decided to locate a new service centre right in the heart of the CBD in Gosford, bringing 100 new jobs. Fast broadband was one of the key reasons they indicated they moved to Gosford and not to another region. So with 600 new jobs also coming into Gosford in a purpose-built Commonwealth agency—a key election commitment of this coalition government to the Central Coast—we will see even more momentum in a city connected with 21st century technology.
This fast broadband rollout across Australia is thanks to our new mixed technology rollout strategy. A full fibre-to-the-premise NBN would cost between $20 billion and $30 billion more than the current government's plan and could not be completed until 2026 at the earliest and could even be as late as 2028—that is, 13 years away. There is evidence of this slow progress but I am very pleased to commend our superfast broadband rollout to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
It is with pleasure I rise to contribute to the debate on the honourable member for Robertson's motion on the NBN. The government was elected on a platform of no surprises and no excuses but the story of the NBN under this government has been all surprises and all excuses. I am astounded that those opposite would want to draw attention to the most recent NBN corporate plan, but I am more than happy to let them keep kicking own goals.
The corporate plan released in August this year reveals that under the Abbott government the cost of the NBN has nearly doubled since April 2013 when then shadow minister, Malcolm Turnbull, opposition leader Tony Abbott and hologram Sonny Bill Williams promised that they could do this for $29.5 billion. This is the third time the cost of this Abbott government's second-rate network has blown out. It blew out to $41 billion in December 2013 and increased to $42 billion in August 2014. The 2016-18 corporate plan revealed it will now cost up to $56 billion—a blow out of $26.5 billion. So after doubling the deficit this government has almost doubled the cost of the country's biggest infrastructure program. So much for superior economic management! They said they were better than us. They said it would be faster, sooner and more affordable—fail, fail, fail!
The financial return to taxpayers from this government's second-rate NBN has also crashed. In December 2013 we were assured that the rate of return would be up to 5.3 per cent but the recent corporate plan reveals that it will be 3.5 per cent at best. The Minister for Communications has no-one else to blame for this cost blow-out. It has happened because he made extraordinarily poor policy decisions and erroneous assumptions. Here are just a few.
The minister assured us that his renegotiations with Telstra would be completed 'speedily' and 'certainly by June 2014'. In reality the agreement did not even commence until 26 June this year, so he missed it by about 12 months. Minister Turnbull assured us that the large-scale rollout of fibre to the node would commence in mid-2014—and I heard the member talking about this—but in reality full access to the copper was delayed until June this year and the large-scale rollout of fibre to the node still has not started. The great pre-election NBN fallacy that all Australians would have access to 25 megabits per second by 2016 was blown out of the water. No wonder the member's motion does not mention connections by 2016. It must be very embarrassing for those opposite that that promise did not even last the year 2013.
According to the corporate plan, less than half of all Australians will have access to the NBN by June 2017. This is the minister who promised the NBN for everyone by 2016, and now it is half the population a year later. There are other factors that are at play here, as the University of Melbourne's Professor Rod Tucker recently pointed out for The Conversation:
Also, the cost of repairing and maintaining Telstra's ageing copper network was likely underestimated, as was the cost of retraining and maintaining a workforce with the wider range of skills needed to install and maintain the multi-technology-mix network—costs that are unique to the MTM.
In the space of two years, the lower-cost deal the Coalition spruiked to Australian voters has turned out to be not so affordable after all.
How did it all come to this? We all remember the much lauded strategic review. This was the review the minister got his mates to put together with one goal in mind: to conform to a pre-existing view that fibre to the premises was not the way to go. But there is only one problem: the document is dodgy. The minister himself confirmed the flawed nature of this document in an interview just last month, when he said:
The strategic review took six weeks. This plan—
the recent corporate plan—
has taken a year … I think the truth is, prior to this work being completed we didn't really know how much it was going to cost. So much of the input was questionable.
These are the minister's own words. So the document that provided the catalyst for this shift in approach—from a world-class fully fibre network to this second-rate mixed approach—is so flawed the minister himself does not even stand by it. The document that made all of these delays and blow-outs possible is no longer worth the paper it is written on. It is an utter disgrace. The NBN is now a company hamstrung by policy madness which has driven this government. As Professor Tucker further stated:
The Coalition sold the Australian public a product that was supposed to be fast, one-third the cost and arrive sooner than what Labor was offering us. Instead the Coalition's NBN will be so slow that it is obsolete by the time it's in place, it will cost about the same as Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN, and it won't arrive on our doorsteps much sooner.
By my reckoning, we didn’t get a good deal.
The problem we have here is a minister more focused on his personal ambitions than on doing his day job, a bloke who has talked a big game but absolutely failed to deliver. Maybe if this minister concentrated on what he is supposed to be doing for the people of Australia then we would get some results.
TE Lawrence once wrote:
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.
The trouble with the former Minister Conroy is that he was actually asleep. It was a good idea, no doubt, and with good intention, I have no doubt, but without a plan for implementation it was merely hallucination. To think that a government and a government department and, with respect, the bureaucrats could do a better job than the private sector in building such a massive piece of infrastructure was arrogance personified. The overpromising and the underdelivering of the previous government is something that no doubt somebody will write a book about one-day. It was done on a drinks coaster. More fool you if you believe the numbers that were provided by the previous government. In four years they had no accounting. Labor left us with measures upon which we were based. We are now getting back on with the job and we are delivering an NBN that will be affordable to the people of Australia with the honesty and the accounting that it provides. We are not going to rewrite history.
In my electorate of Lyons, we have a number of communities that already have been connected with fibre to the premise: Triabunna, Midway Point, St Helens and Deloraine. With respect, these are the communities, and it was this technology that provided the most difficulties. When you are digging up backyards and you are having to drill holes through walls, these were the difficulties. With the headline speeds, though, of 100 megabits download and 40 megabits upload, only 10 per cent of people around Australia have taken up these feeds. Eighty-seven per cent of people are choosing speeds of 25 megabits per second or less. Labor talk about gigabytes per second services. Nationally, five people out of a million connections, costing roughly $20,000 a month, have been able to access such services. Basic services with spots to such speeds cost hundreds if not thousands and depend very much on the volume required.
Much of my electorate will be connected very soon—in the first half of 2016—to fibre-to-the-node technology. It is a simpler technology which delivers the same headline speeds of 100 megabits down and 40 megabits up. The communities at Evandale and Dodges Ferry will be connected by the middle of next year, Evandale possibly earlier. Bicheno, Gravelly Beach, Brighton, Gagebrook, Campbelltown, Grindelwald, Lawitta, New Norfolk, Longford, Orford and Westbury will all be connected through fibre-to-the-node technology.
Fixed wireless is of course a very important technology for regional and rural electorates like Lyons. Already in Tasmania 27,810 premises are covered through wireless, with a final figure of 36,000—or roughly 12 per cent—to be connected. In my electorate of Lyons, the percentage is much higher. Headline speeds of 50 megabits down and 20 megabits up are truly comparable with anywhere in the world. Importantly, prices on offer for the packages in these areas are among the cheapest in the world. I think particularly of the communities that are very dependent on tourism, such as those around Coles Bay, that will very soon have connection to the NBN via wireless. There is a great story up at the Great Lake, where Peter and Kaylee Hattinger have access to wireless at the Great Lake Hotel. They speak very highly of the service they have. We were told that the cost was going to be roughly $2½ thousand per connection. On coming to government, however, we discovered the cost to be more like $4,300 per connection.
Satellite will also be an important connection technology in my electorate of Lyons. Labor did not care about regional Australia. They were more interested in getting connections in the areas around central Sydney and central Melbourne—areas that already had excellent ADSL connections. For the first time, regional Australia will be part of this. In Tasmania, with credible accounting and proper budgets, the project is well and truly back on track. We will be the first state completed in the country. We have a regional focus and Lyons will be the beneficiary.
It is astonishing that members opposite would wish to draw attention to the shambles that is the coalition's policy on the National Broadband Network. On the critical issues of cost, timing and speed, the coalition fails on all three fronts. I will illustrate this by looking at the situation in my own electorate of Newcastle.
Stockton is at the northern end of my electorate. It is an idyllic seaside suburb with a tight-knit community that is just a few hundred metres as the crow flies from the centre of Newcastle. In May 2013, Stockton was added to the National Broadband Network rollout map. Residents who had long suffered from poor ADSL broadband access and quality were finally due to receive Labor's superfast fibre-to-the-premises NBN by 2016. To describe Stockton as having poor broadband access and quality is indeed a generous description of the current situation. For some residents, there was no access at all, and those who do have access have some of the slowest upload and download speeds in Australia. News of the NBN hook-up was most welcome. Frustrating drop-outs and video buffering would be replaced by 21st century, reliable, superfast, high-quality broadband right to their doorsteps. Stockton joined the rest of the Newcastle electorate on Labor's NBN rollout map, ensuring that every home and every business would have access by 2016.
But then the Abbott Liberal government was elected. The hopes of Stockton residents were dashed. Like the rest of my electorate, they were wiped off the rollout map altogether. We went from 100 per cent coverage for rollout by 2016 to zero. The Abbott Liberal government had hoped to placate Novocastrians with promises of services delivering a minimum of 25 megabits per second. While it was not the best service possible, it was at least an improvement on the existing ADSL coverage. But, as I believe all sides of this chamber know, that was nothing but a hollow commitment from a hollow government. Not long after being elected, even that promise was broken.
Fast forward to today: following a strong community campaign, Stockton is finally back on the NBN rollout map, with work due to commence in the second half of 2016. That is right—the work is due to commence at the end of 2016, at the very same time as residents under Labor's plan were actually expecting to be connected. It is quite astounding that the motion before us talks of an improved state of the NBN under this government. Any independent analysis makes clear that the coalition's NBN fails the Australian people on almost every front. Contrary to the three-word slogans prior to the election, where the coalition members argued that their NBN version would be faster, more affordable and rolled out sooner, we know from lived experience that they have failed on all counts.
Let's just take a look at the facts. On the issue of costs: before being elected the coalition promised their NBN was going to cost about $29.5 billion to build. In reality, we see something far different. The NBN corporate plan, released last month, confirmed that the costs of Malcolm Turnbull's inferior NBN had nearly doubled to $56 billion—so much for offering a more affordable NBN. On the issue of timing: before being elected, the government promised the NBN would be rolled out to all homes and businesses within three years—that is, by the end of 2016. But we know that is not going to be true either. And Malcolm Turnbull was alleged to be the best person to make sure this happened.
On the issue of speed, how does the coalition's NBN stack up? Australia is falling well behind our international peers and is failing to meet the needs of today, let alone those of the future. In 2009 Australia's average broadband download speed was ranked as 39th in the world. Since then our international reckoning has slipped to 59th place and the government's multi-technology mix could see our ranking fall to as low as 100th by 2020. Notwithstanding all these issues with the coalition's inferior broadband, it is the lack of vision and future proofing of the Minister for Communications that I find most astounding. His complete inability to understand the imperative to deliver 21st century technology to the Australian people—to every home and to every business—is worrying, to say the least. The digital divide that is being created across the country, within electorates and even within suburbs, is leading to greater inequality in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull is clearly too busy keeping an eye on getting the top job in this country to worry about his own portfolio responsibilities.
I rise today to support the motion brought to the House by the member for Robertson. The National Broadband Network is Australia's largest, most complex infrastructure project, reaching into every premises right across the country. It is the most expensive project ever undertaken, but it is also this because its distribution is by far the most complex.
This was a project whose origins were from a drinks coaster on the VIP: a great idea, but no plan for implementation. And we all know that if you do not plan, then you plan to fail. And that is exactly what happened with the implementation of the NBN.
This has been a story of a formidable turnaround. The NBN has done a remarkable job in getting this project back on track. At the time of the election it had missed every single target set for it, and by a very wide margin. It is good to say that the NBN is now meeting its targets. I would like to commend the minister for his work in getting the NBN back on track.
The NBN is now available to over 10 per cent of Australian premises, and by June 30 next year the NBN will be available to one in four Australian premises. By 2018, the NBN strives to have the service available to about three-quarters of Australian premises. This project is moving along very quickly.
In my seat of Lindsay more than 22,000 premises are already in service. Brownfield sites and new developments have worked to bring this together. There is work on a further 6,000 premises currently underway.
Already parts of Agnes Banks, Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Cranebrook, Jamisontown, Kingswood, Londonderry, Penrith, Penrith CBD, South Penrith, Llandilo and Werrington Downs are connected to the NBN. Emu Plains—where it was great to have the minister come out and visit in May—has become one of four suburbs across New South Wales and Queensland selected to take part in a construction pilot which is designed to speed up the rollout plan. This program takes place, and homes and businesses that already sit within the footprint of the hybrid fibre coaxial, or HFC, networks deployed by Optus and Telstra potentially can be included in the trial. Following commercial agreements signed last December, these networks will be progressively incorporated into the NBN and will be used to deliver fast and affordable broadband services to homes and businesses right across Australia and the Lindsay electorate.
Many Lindsay residents, when we announced this in May, agreed with Belinda Hill, who said, 'That's fantastic news for residents of Emu Plains. Well done, Fiona.' Jason Cooper stated, 'Good news.' Margaret Ware just said that it was great. Around 40 per cent of premises in Lindsay are currently passed by these HFC networks. Other premises will be connected to the NBN via other technologies, including multitechnology rollout. The NBN will be providing services of 100 megabits per second download when the HFC service is launched next year. By 2017 a technology upgrade will result in the HFC network operated by the NBN Co being capable of offering speeds of one gigabyte per second for download and 100 megabits per second for upload. These networks will be upgraded so they are among the most advanced in the world by 2017. Although the $30 billion differential is still there, NBN Co's conclusion is that, by the time the differential of the all-fibre approach is undertaken, it will take until 2026, and quite possibly 2028, to be completed.
This project under the current strategy will be completed by 2020. The political opponents of ours who say that we should go back to an all-fibre model are saying to the millions of Australians who want NBN and who want to see it sooner that, if they vote for Labor, they will wait for another six or eight years. Some of them will have to wait for more than a decade. Simply, that is not acceptable to us. We are determined to see the NBN. We are determined to see more Australians have access to very fast broadband as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. I commend again the member for Robertson for bringing this motion to the House.
When it comes to broadband in this country, Australians know two things. The first is that we need a modern network—because our economy needs it, regional communities need it and future generations of Australians need it. The second thing they know, and they know deeply, is that every single thing that the Abbott government promised would happen with the NBN is not happening and that everything that is happening in this country with the NBN is a throwback to when the coalition were last in government. They are taking us back to a situation we have experienced before, with a complete inability to get broadband rolled out in this nation.
They promised fibre to the node—their version of the NBN—would be at scale and rolling out at full speed. It is not happening. They promised every home and business would have access to 25 megabits per second download speeds by the end of 2016. It ain't going to happen. They promised it would roll out cheaper. It is not happening. It is actually double the cost of what they promised. Finally, they promised that, by 2019, the entire network would be built. It is not going to happen. Every single thing they have promised is not occurring. These are problems of their own making.
The first fatal flaw is that fibre networks, by their very nature, take time to roll out and to get the speed of the rollout happening. They need time for the architecture, network planning, logistics and supply and labour arrangements to be put in place. All this takes time to build up, but, once it happens, you can start getting the rollout moving with quite a pace. But, the minute the government got into office, they pulled the handbrake on the entire process, largely through this cavalcade of review after review after review, sending the signal that they were not going to be proceeding in a way that would see the rollout occur by 2021, which is what was originally promised by the Labor in government.
They took time, for example, to negotiate the Telstra agreement. It took ages for that to happen. And what happened as a result of that agreement? We did not get an agreement about optic fibre. We did not get an agreement about a future network. We got an agreement to dust off the old copper network and to breathe life back into an old network that, time and again, has shown that it is incapable of dealing with the modern needs of businesses and homes in this country that require faster speeds. They have celebrated the return of copper when countries around the world are welcoming fibre. It is simply ridiculous that we are being forced as a nation to see the entire rollout shudder to a halt.
Where are we now? We are absolutely back to where we were when the coalition were last in government. Remember, the thing that occurred under their government was not the rollout of fibre; it was 19 separate broadband plans that attempted to deliver a better network and were incapable of doing so. This is the fault of one person—one person and one person only—and I am not talking about the Prime Minister, who is still regaled by the wonder of the operation of a fridge light. It is the man who is capable of explaining that to him and explaining the need for that to happen, the man who the PM has told us was responsible for practically inventing the internet, and that is Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth. He has been enamoured with question time performances that obsessed about Senator Conroy or wanted to tell us movie metaphor after movie metaphor and go through the dramatics, but do you know what? You do not see in question time the Minister for Communications over there explaining how well things are going, because he cannot. He cannot explain how they are going well, because they are not going well, because on every single measure this rollout has slowed down and ground down to a halt.
The opportunities are basically lost opportunities. There are frustrated communities. In my area, there are broadband blackspots, and we have worked for ages to get them fixed, in suburbs like Woodcroft. We finally got them onto the rollout map only to have them taken off the rollout map by this government then put back on the rollout map—but not the entire suburb, which was a broadband blackspot, being fixed; only half of the suburb. So you can go to Lakewood Drive in Woodcroft. The southern side has access to fibre to the home, fibre to the premises, but north of Lakewood Drive does not. Time and again I have appealed for Woodcroft to be included.
If the minister thinks that fibre to the node works, prove it. Show it. But do not let communities be stuck with a substandard network that is incapable of meeting their current needs. Everything the government have touched with broadband has turned to dust, and everyone is paying for it, other than them.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the recent media investigation on the ABC program Four Corners about the abuse of 7 Eleven employees;
(b) complaints against the 7-Eleven franchise included employees being underpaid and forced to breach their visa requirements and work very long hours without a break; and
(c) these reports and the employment practices of 7-Eleven franchisees have caused significant community concern which must be addressed; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) take immediate action to address the abuse of workers across the 7-Eleven franchise network; and
(b) ensure that workers that were forced by their employers to breach their visa conditions are not penalised.
It is good to be speaking on this motion in the House today. Obviously, Australia has prided itself on being a nation of a fair go, and that is a very important thing for our nation's psychology. But we cannot be the nation of a fair go unless we have a system of wages in this country which has integrity and a system of immigration and visas which has integrity. These two things are fundamental—absolutely fundamental, I think—to our view of ourselves as a country. We certainly cannot be the country of a fair go if we have an immigration system interacting with a wages system which produces something like modern serfdom. We cannot be the nation of a fair go if that is the case.
Recently, due to the good work of the ABC and the good work of the Fairfax press—and both the ABC and the Fairfax press get a bit of a hard time from ministers in this government from time to time—they did the nation a service when they published and broadcast very serious allegations about the 7-Eleven group, which basically revolved around the abuse of both visa conditions and our wages system.
Of course, they featured the rather harrowing story of Sam Pendem, who had to work shifts of up to 16 hours at 7-Eleven without a break. He was robbed twice in the space of 18 hours by a man in a balaclava, brandishing a long serrated knife; he was scolded by his employer for not fighting the robber—not fighting back to stop the robber from taking $180; he was paid somewhere between $10 an hour at one store and $14 an hour at another store; he had to do the job of two people; and, often, if someone drove off without paying for their petrol he basically had to foot the bill for the lost petrol costs. Of course, all of those things—the long hours he worked and the conditions in which he worked—also put him in breach of the visa conditions that he was in Australia under. He was an overseas student. As The Sydney Morning Herald, which I just quoted from, pointed out, this arrangement, which was known as a 'half-pay' scam, put Mr Pendem in breach of his own visa conditions.
The half-pay scammers know that students can work up to 20 hours on their visas. What was going on here, apparently—according to these reports—was that people worked twice as many hours at effectively the same rate, which made it half the pay. It would appear as if they were working 20 hours on the book but in actual fact they were sometimes working double that. A 7-Eleven insider was quoted as saying:
They can’t run 7-Eleven as profitably as successfully as they have without letting this happen, … but the reality is it’s built on something not much different from slavery
So, according to the ABC and Fairfax Media, that is the model on which, 7-Eleven are operating at the moment. I notice that they now have Mr Allan Fels undertaking investigations to clean up some of those issues that have occurred in their stores. But you would have to say that if a franchise model is built on these sorts of scams then that should attract the attention of the government.
But what have we seen from this government? We have seen no leadership, no press releases, no task force, no new laws, no new action and no urgency. They have been content to let departmental spokespeople talk about proposing amnesties. But we have not seen one iota of action from this government. It would seem that they are happy to allow this to occur—this stain on our nation's character. And we cannot be the country of a 'fair go' if we are allowing modern-day serfdom and modern-day slavery to be undertaken by people who are little more than guest workers. They are here on student visas, or backpacker visas or some other visa category, but more often than not they are here to work. And more often than not their employer is hanging that visa over their heads as a method to get leverage, to underpay them and to have them fulfil conditions that we do not think are right. So the government has to act on these matters.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I find that it is a rare occurrence when I actually have some partial agreement with the member for Wakefield. It is in the sentiment of his motion, but not actually in the sentiment of his language used during his speech.
It is true that this has been a scandal involving 7-Eleven. But the facts are that in this country we can never forget that the vast majority of employers do the right thing by their employees. We know that all visa holders in this country must be employed in line with Australian pay, conditions and workplace entitlements under the Fair Work Act. All employers are legally required to remunerate and to meet the work rights of all their employees, including foreign visa holders, in accordance with workplace law.
If you listened to the speech by the member for Wakefield, you would think that nothing is being done about this. It is far to the contrary. In fact, in June 2014 the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced a long-term inquiry into the systematic workplace issues at 7-Eleven franchises. The Fair Work Ombudsman conducted an education and audit campaign of several 7-Eleven franchises in metropolitan Melbourne and Geelong in 2009-10. In February 2015 the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. In June 2015 the Fair Work Ombudsman filed court proceedings against the operators of a 7-Eleven store in Blacktown. So for the member of Wakefield to say that nothing has been done is completely incorrect.
Yes, we have to look after the workers, but we also have to look after the franchisees, those small business operators. The real problem, the root cause of this evil, is the franchise agreements between the franchisor and the franchisee. We have seen the attitude of the Labor Party to this. We have seen the current leader of the Labor Party's attitude with the hot pie scandal where he actually went into a 7-Eleven store and abused the worker. That is the attitude of the Labor Party.
When it came to looking after the interests of small businesses, we saw that during their term of government no less than five separate small business ministers—a rotisserie of changing small business ministers. Most of all, this issue gets down to unfair contract terms. I quote from an article by Robert Gottliebsen about this issue. He said:
… then the standard contracts put out by Wilmot's—
which is Warren Wilmot, the former chief executive—
7-Eleven might be one of those declared unfair because they made it impossible for many franchisees to make a profit without using low-cost labour.
Indeed that’s exactly what former ACCC chief Allan Fels concluded on the program. Fels is now heading the 7-Eleven inquiry into its contracts. The Allan Fels I have known for a long time will honour his word and recommend changes to make 7-Eleven contracts fair—exactly what would have been required under the … “fair contracts” promise …
I remember the Labor Party back in 2007 when they were first elected. They had promised to extend the unfair contract provisions from consumers to small business but when they came to government they buckled, they took their orders from the Franchise Council of Australia and they refused to introduce that legislation to extend to small businesses protection from unfair contract terms. We in the coalition have taken that step that the Labor Party refused to do to protect small businesses from unfair contract terms. It may well be said that the $100,000 cap that we have placed on those contacts is not high enough and could exclude some—and there is some truth there—but we have at least taken the first step—something the Labor Party refused to do when they were in government.
Of course, the other issue is the statutory term of 'good faith' that we in the coalition have put into the franchise contracts. Again there were complaints from the Franchise Council and the opposition. I have great concern about the issue of franchisee churn, which is where one franchisee leaves and gets replaced by another franchisee. We need to address this for the future. A report in TheSydney Morning Heraldsays that 68 franchisees left the 7-Eleven system in the 12 months to June 2015. That is 68 franchisees that have closed down and gone out of business in 12 months. This is something that must be in the Franchising Code of Conduct; this is something that must be disclosed. Someone going into one of these contracts should know that there has been that significant churn through the franchise system.
The member for Hughes, the previous speaker, failed to actually speak to what is in this motion. It speaks quite specifically about what is going on in the poultry food-processing industry here in Australia. It talks about the work that the Fair Work Ombudsman has done to expose the abuse and exploitation of people who are here on temporary work visas, whether it be the 417 visa or the 457 visa, working for Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd. Unfortunately, what happened at Baiada is not a stand-alone case within the poultry industry. This particular case exposes the failure of this business and other businesses in the poultry industry to clean up their act.
The government must act—it must step in and get this company and other companies to start treating their workers properly—and implement the recommendations that the Fair Work Ombudsman has made. There are quite serious issues that the Fair Work Ombudsman has exposed in this particular case. Not only did it find that the company was refusing to pay people properly but it also exposed the hideous nature of the sham contracting arrangements, where one company subcontracts to another company that subcontracts to another company that then may employ people specifically. This issue that we have before us today demonstrates quite clearly that we have a problem within the temporary work visa program, whether it be at Baiada or 7-Eleven.
We are now hearing reports of problems with the temporary visa program. People who come here and work, whether they be international students, 457 visa holders or 417 visa holders, must be ensured that there are safeguards to protect their rights at work. We have seen time and time again problems in this system, yet the government is failing to implement the recommendations being made by the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure these temporary work visa holders do, in fact, have Australian wages and conditions. This government has weakened the safeguards that were in place, by what they call streamlining, or removed, through their red tape repeal days, some of the safeguards that were in place to ensure that these workers had proper protection.
To unpack what is going on in Australian workplaces is complex, I acknowledge that, but it is up to the government to ensure the recommendations that have been put forward by the Fair Work Ombudsman are being adopted by the companies that they recommended do so. In my previous role I did quite a bit of work with international students. When they first come to Australia international students do not know what their rights are in regard to work. They can take on positions. And it is not until they meet a union official or they meet a union member or they meet someone—an Australian worker—who says, 'Hey, what are you getting paid? What is actually going on?' do they then learn the truth of how much they are being underpaid. And that is exactly what happened with the 7-Eleven situation that we are talking about today. 7-Eleven, Baiada, what we find is it is not until people are aware of their rights that they then raise the issues that are now being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Within this country, we need to ensure that we have proper safeguards in place. We need to ensure that whether you are here as a guest temporary worker or you an Australian citizen worker that you have the same workplace wages and conditions. But what we see time and time again through the work of the Fair Work Ombudsman is that there are a number of people working here in this country that do not have access to those rights. We need to ensure that this government gets serious about ensuring that people working here have the same rights and conditions. Further, whether it be at Baiada, which was one of the issues exposed, whether it be at 7-Eleven, whether it be at KR Castlemaine, which is in my electorate, that those positions are being offered to locals first. We know that Australians will not accept half pay. We know that Australians will not accept being exploited in this way. They also do not expect people who are here guest workers being exploited in this way. I support this motion and call on all of those in this House to support this motion.
The Four Corners journalist Adele Ferguson's investigation into the 7-Eleven business empire exposed revelations of dodgy bookkeeping, blackmail and the mass underpayment of its workforce, and that exposure showed that this has been a continuing practice for some time and it was also a practice under the previous Labor government. The allegations made in the Four Corners program are concerning. While the majority of employers do the right thing and treat their workers with the decency they deserve, we have a responsibility to ensure we are doing all we can to address the instances where workers' rights are being compromised, which is why the government continues to undertake targeted compliance activities across several departments.
Exploitation of workers in Australia, whether domestic or foreign, is unlawful and any employer engaging or paying workers below those conditions are breaking the law. All visa holders must be employed in line with Australian pay, conditions and workplace entitlements under the Fair Work Act. All employers, as we know, are legally required to treat and remunerate all of their employees, including foreign visa holders, with work rights in accordance with Australian workplace law.
Both the Department of Immigration and the Fair Work Ombudsman are active in ongoing compliance campaigns to ensure that visa holders are being paid in accordance with Australian pay and conditions. I find the member for Bendigo's comments interesting because Fair Work was established under the Gillard-Rudd government and therefore, on that basis, I would have expected them to have been very active in addressing this issues within that period. In hindsight, it is always easy to criticise. Governments have enduring departments that undertake this work so when information is exposed, the department then follows through.
Mr Champion interjecting—
It is interesting, member for Wakefield, that you were in government for six years. Why did you not address this then? This is not just now; it did happen. The Four Corners expose implied greater than what you are saying. The government actively encourages overseas workers who have concerns that their workplace rights are being compromised to contact the Fair Work Ombudsman on 131 394 or the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Fair Work website has material translated in 27 languages and includes fact sheets.
In June 2014, the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced a long-term inquiry into systemic workplace issues at 7-Eleven franchises. As part of this inquiry, the Fair Work Ombudsman made unannounced site visits at 20 7-Eleven stores across Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane on 13 September 2014. These site visits identified contraventions in a majority of stores. This inquiry remains ongoing.
In January 2010, the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced legal proceedings against a company operating 7-Eleven stores in Geelong and South Yarra in Victoria and against two individuals responsible for setting and adjusting the employees' pay rates, resulting in a court compensation order of almost $90,000 and a penalty of $150,000. A total of $30,000 in penalties recovered from the individuals was paid to the employees. The Fair Work Ombudsman later wound up the company.
I want to go to a couple of comments that reflect this issue in the long-term context. When you consider the coalition's record compared to Labor, Labor cut staff funding at the Fair Work Ombudsman from 900 in 2009-10 to 723 in 2013 when the then minister, Bill Shorten, stopped being the responsible minister. When you cut then you leave an agency exposed in the work covered, member for Wakefield. Bill Shorten had the power to take action when he was minister and he did nothing. Brendan O'Connor had the power to take action when he was immigration minister but the evidence shows that he did nothing.
Labour hire companies, like all Australian employers, are legally required to treat and remunerate all of their employees, including foreign visa holders, with work rights in accordance with Australian law. I hope that we do not see a continuance of this in the future and that those who break the law face the consequences of the penalties that are applied. I would encourage those who have visas that work in conditions where the salaries are not commensurate to certainly expose that to the relevant agencies.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) commends the fantastic work that the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Government are doing to make northern Australia’s economic development a priority;
(2) notes that the Northern Australia Investment Forum, the next stepping stone in bringing Australia’s broader strengths to Northern Australia, will focus on:
(a) the important initiatives highlighted in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia to help business capitalise on the region’s strengths by removing barriers to investment; and
(b) showcase investment opportunities on offer and in prospect in the north; and
(3) recognises:
(a) that Northern Australia accounts for a significant share of Australia’s exports with more than half of Australia’s sea exports leaving via northern ports;
(b) that the north will account for 42 per cent of the Australian economy by 2040, up from 35 per cent in 2011; and
(c) the exciting potential for increased investment, trade, infrastructure and agriculture production in the north and the job opportunities this could create.
My motion commends the fantastic work that Minister Robb and the coalition government are doing to make northern Australia's economic development policy. My motion notes that the Northern Australia Investment Forum, the next stepping stone in bringing Australia's broader strengths to northern Australia, will focus on (a) the important initiatives highlighted in the White paper on developing northern Australia to help business capitalise on the region's strengths by removing barriers to investment and (b) showcasing investment opportunities on offer and in prospect within the north.
My motion also recognises that northern Australia accounts for a significant share of Australia's exports with more than half of Australia's sea exports leaving via northern ports. My motion acknowledges that the north will account for 42 per cent of the Australian economy by 2040, up from 35 per cent in 2011. My motion recognises the exciting potential for increased investment, trade, infrastructure and agriculture production in the north and the job opportunities this could create.
Talk of developing the north of Australia has been going on for more than a century. When all is said and done, an awful lot more has been said than done. North Australia has an abundance of mineral resources. We have tens of millions of hectares of land for agricultural production and energy resources but perhaps, most importantly, we have a few hundred thousand tough, tenacious and innovative people who are ready and willing to make the most of the sometimes harsh environment that we live in. But with the best will in the world and the best resources in the world, no industry is going to thrive if it cannot get their goods to market.
North Australia needs infrastructure. We need pipes to take gas from the northern fields to the southern homes that need heating. We need roads to move livestock from the vast stations of the interior to the coast, and we need deepwater ports so that they can be loaded onto ships for export. That is why the Abbott government commissioned the north Australia white paper. The north Australia white paper is a comprehensive road map to nation building across tropical Australia.
North Australia has all the ingredients for a prosperous economy. The white paper brings those ingredients together. This is a plan to build the infrastructure that will allow industry to thrive and develop so that we all benefit. The white paper includes measures to unlock north Australia's potential across six areas: simpler land arrangements to support investment; developing water resources; growing the north as a business trade and investment gateway; investing in infrastructure to lower business and household costs;·reducing barriers to employing people; and improving governance.
This is not a document designed to sit on the shelf and gather dust; this is a plan that is already being implemented. Between the 2015 budget and the white paper launch, more than $6 billion has already been allocated to major infrastructure projects. We have a $5 billion concessional loans scheme, which will bring together private sector innovation with public sector resources to invest in the sorts of projects to grow economies; the sort of projects that create jobs.
In November, an invitation-only event will be held in my electorate in Darwin to bring together high-level decision makers to discuss north Australian investment opportunities. North Australia can offer investors what no other part of the world can: untapped resources and shovel-ready, high-performing projects, all located within a stable, First World economy. The Australian government's investments are already starting to pay off: $100 million has been allocated to upgrade northern cattle roads, $20 million to support native title bodies and $17 million to secure property rights—and the list goes on.
Within my electorate of Solomon, we are already seeing the north Australia white paper gain traction. Members of the business community whom I have met with are very excited about the possibilities. Darwin is already a key strategic link between Australia and Asia. As the north Australia economy grows, the number of goods flowing through Darwin will increase.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Can I thank the member for Solomon for this motion on the books and can I recognise our chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, the bald-headed, moustachioed—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Then it is not a mirror—Mr Entsch. Last Saturday evening, I was fortunate enough to attend the 110th anniversary of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. I say that because the very fibre of the Labor Party across northern Australia has been the north, its development and its development interests. We all support the idea of having an investment forum in the north as part of the process of developing it, and as a flow-on from the white paper. However, I just counsel a number of things. It is really very important that if these sorts of investor round tables are to take place, they will achieve very little unless Aboriginal traditional owners and those with an interest in native title on land across the north of Australia are involved. Native title and the statutory titleholders to the land such as through the Northern Territory land rights act have an interest in the majority of the land across the north. I am sorry to say, but I think simpler land arrangements often mean weakening title interests. That is, of course, affecting the interests of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in the north of Australia.
Across the Northern Territory, all of traditional owners in the Northern Territory own more than 50 per cent of the landmass and more than 85 per cent of the coastline. If this forum is like so many others before it, it will not have acceptable outcomes unless it is engaging with and involving traditional owners of the land across the north. I would encourage those involved with this process to ensure they are taking proper account of the interests of native title holders and traditional owners of land in northern Australia.
Another issue confronting the north is water. So much of the northern development will always be dependent on sustainable water supply and access.
The Rudd government in 2007 convened the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce, which examined the long-term strategic potential for land and water development with particular emphasis, but not limited to, the capacity of the north's future agricultural development. The Martin and Henderson Labor governments were part of that process and had, as a critical objective, set up strategic Indigenous reserves, SIR, program.
The SIR program was aimed at allowing Aboriginal traditional owners to have perpetual, exclusive and inalienable rights to a share of water from aquifers, rivers and creeks. The idea was that that water could be used by Aboriginal people for economic or environmental activity that would generate prosperity for their communities. The policy was developed by the Indigenous Water Policy Group and driven by the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, NAILSMA, formerly led by Joe Morrison, now at the Northern Land Council, and Peter Yu, formerly of the Kimberley Land Council.
But the election of the Mills-Giles CLP government in 2012 was to change everything. Immediately after the election, the CLP government tore up the SIR, denying Aboriginal people the opportunity to participate in their own economic future and development. It gets worse. The same CLP government then handed out huge allocations of water to other non-Indigenous interests, including to a local magistrate who was also a large donor to the CLP and to a prominent CLP member and pastoralist who stood against me at the last federal election. She admitted she did not know what she was going to do with the allocation. We now know, though, because she has applied to subdivide her property with a selling feature being the large water allocations that go along with the sale of the land. These sorts of rorts cannot be allowed to continue. If we are interested in actually developing the north properly, we need to have a rational approach to all resource development, including the allocation of water.
For NAILSMA, payback was swift. With the deeply flawed Indigenous Advancement Strategy, NAILSMA applied for funding to continue and grow their work. Sadly, they were unable to get any funding. Their record is second to none in terms of demonstrating on a scientific basis how our environment can be developed in a sustainable way to the benefit of all northern Australians and indeed the nation as a whole.
Of the $10 million over four years that NAILSMA applied to the ISA for, they received nothing—zilch, zero, not a red cent. It makes you think that those opposite and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs want northern development all right—they do want it—but not with Aboriginal people being engaged or having ownership of the outcomes.
I rise today to add my support to the member for Solomon's motion and to commend the Minister for Trade and Investment for his tireless efforts in this area.
The Northern Australia Investment Forum will be held in Darwin from 8-10 November. It will focus on attracting investors and exposing them to opportunities in the north, supported by the publication of an investor-ready project. I am aware of many projects that will be put forward at that time, and there is a great deal of enthusiasm for participation in that event. As I have said before, the white paper on developing northern Australia is all about government being an enabler, attracting investment and promoting the right investment conditions for projects to get off the ground, independent of financial support from government.
The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is another key measure. It is a central part of the government's work to build a strong, prosperous economy. Together with Australia's free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea, the China FTA will set our country up for long-term prosperity. These three agreements will create thousands of jobs, make households close to $4,500 better off, and boost GDP by an estimated $24.4 billion between 2016 and 2035.
Today I am pleased to provide an update on some of the key measures of the northern Australia white paper. The $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility opened on 1 July. Criteria are being finalised by Treasury, covering geographic eligibility, the types of infrastructure able to be supported and financial criteria to be met. Draft criteria will be released soon for consultation with relevant interested parties. Discussions are underway with the Northern Territory and Queensland governments to start the pre-feasibility of the Mount Isa to Tennant Creek railway, and looking at feasibility for the upgrade from Mount Isa through to Townsville port for that rail system.
There is a significant number of other projects that I am aware of, with proponents that are very keen to participate in this fund. There is the $600 million northern Australia roads package; submissions from Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia will be invited from later this month. There is the $100 million 'beef roads' investment; the first industry forum will be held in Rockhampton at the start of October. Priorities are expected to be finalised in early 2016.
There are the pilot land reform projects in the north; the Attorney-General working group has been established and they will be inviting applications for funding in late 2015, with more efficient native title processes progressing through the COAG Indigenous land review. There will be options to use exclusive native title rights for commercial purposes.
The Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce is on track to report back in November. And we would expect to see some significant positive outcomes there in dealing with the current crisis that we have.
The design and implementation plan for the $500 million Water Infrastructure Development Fund is in the process of being signed off. We are on track to begin our feasibility assessment of Nullinga Dam in Queensland and the Ord stage 3 in Western Australia. Discussion has started with the Queensland government, and more updates are expected in the coming months. Work is also progressing with the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into developing aquaculture opportunities in northern Australia. There is a huge opportunity for the expansion of Australia's aquaculture industry.
There are some great opportunities in this area, and we look forward to a hearing in Canberra tomorrow night with the Departments of Agriculture, Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Environment, and CSIRO. So I look forward to giving updates in the future about these magnificent opportunities for northern Australia.
You are quite right in noting that in northern Australia $40,000 million comes out of the coal industry every year; $75,000 million out of the iron ore industry, $11,000 million out of the aluminium industry, $15,000 million out of the gold industry and $10,000 million out of the beef industry. In fact, the vast preponderance of Australia's export earnings comes out of North Queensland. Then there is the Galilee rail line. For three years Clive Palmer was going to build it, but now he is not going to build it. GVK, Gina Rinehart's Indian company, was going to build it, but now it is not going to build it. Mr Adani was going to build it and we do not know whether he is going to build it now or not. For heaven's sake, every inch of railway line built in Queensland was built by the government into the coalfields. They have to be multiuser facilities. To quote the great Andrew Forrest in Western Australia, the decision by Charles Court not to build that railway line as a government railway line—in sharp contrast to what we did in Queensland—cost that state 25 years. They were behind in their development. If the Gaililee line were built tomorrow, you would get $7,000 million and 20,000 jobs for the next 100 years—just for $2,000 million for a railway line. It would not be $5,000 million; it would be just $2,000 million, which you would get back every year from the state government by way of mineral royalties and payroll tax.
I table today one of the most damning documents in Australia. It has a picture of Cape York Peninsula and a picture of Victoria. They are both the same size in area. Cape York has three times more rainfall, yet it has 141,000 head of cattle and Victoria has 4.2 million head of cattle. Why aren't the cattle there? For two reasons: in 25 years the governments of Australia have refused to give title deeds. It is no use saying a tribe owns it, because that is not ownership—that is a statement of aspiration. It is not an ownership title deed. We need to give these 4,000 First Australians up there who cannot get a job, because there are no cattle up there and there is nothing else much happening up there, title deeds and irrigation, which is the other factor that we need desperately. We also need government guarantees on loans for the development of these various projects.
I constantly hear reference to the Georgetown proposal and the Mareeba proposal. I was up in Georgetown the other day, and all I know is that I got my backside kicked a hell of a lot over that particular project. There are probably some who are in favour of Nullinga—and I do not criticise the member for Leichhardt, because he was officially approached by people about this—but nobody in Mareeba wants Nullinga. So could the government please get in step with North Queensland and what they are going to do? This government has given $3 million and the previous government gave $3 million to the upper Burdekin scheme, and I do not know how many hundreds of millions have been spent on the upper Herbert scheme. So there are two schemes I can name straight off.
The member for Leichhardt, or one of the previous members, was dead right in talking about prawn and fish farming. We said—and I was the minister that sort of was involved in getting the industry started in Australia—that we would catch up with Thailand by the year 2000. Thailand was on $2,000 million. We are languishing on $600 million. Not only have we not caught up with them but we have actually gone backwards from where we were whilst Thailand has gone on to $10,000 million a year in the prawn and fish farming industry. We should be doing $20,000 million in the prawn and fish farming industry in Australia.
If you give us a lazy little government guarantee for $90 million—and maybe in this case we would like a grant—to build a canal, we could give you a $6,000 million a year phosphate industry, and that is not including the iron ore, copper and zinc that would be opened up with that canal. We cannot get the product out—it has got to go all the way back to Mount Isa and Townsville. With silicon there is $5,000 million. That is $50,000 million, and then there is ethanol. There would be 500,000 jobs. All we ask for is a guarantee of a little bit of money. You cannot tell us you are giving us $5,000 million and give— (Time expired)
Is leave granted for the member for Kennedy to table his document?
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the House:
(1) recognises the failure of the Western Australian and Australian governments to manage the Western Australian economy;
(2) notes that under the Western Australian and Australian governments in Western Australia:
(a) unemployment reached its highest rate in 13 years at 6.4 per cent, with 59,000 more Western Australians out of work since the Liberal Party formed government in Western Australia;
(b) business investment dropped 12.7 per cent over the year to June 2015;
(c) state final demand fell by 3.6 per cent in the year to June 2015;
(d) the state’s credit rating was downgraded by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s;
(e) business and consumer confidence are at record low levels;
(f) state net debt has blown out from $3.6 billion in 2008 when the Liberal Party formed government in Western Australia to $30 billion in 2015; and
(g) cost of living increased sharply by 54.3 per cent; and
(3) condemns the:
(a) Australian Government for:
(i) cutting $3.1 billion from Western Australian schools and $5.8 billion from hospitals over 10 years; and
(ii) removing the level playing field from Western Australia in the manufacture of offshore patrol vessels; and
(b) Western Australian and Australian governments for squandering the mining boom and failing to diversify the Western Australian economy and create a jobs and growth plan for the future
Western Australia has really been bringing home the bacon for the national economy over the past decade, but now WA really does need some very serious attention. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that Prime Minister Abbott and the coalition government basically take Western Australia for granted. They see it as a blue state and, as such, we simply are not getting the focus and the attention that we need to deal with the serious economic issues that we are now facing. Indeed, such is the Prime Minister's distorted sense of himself that he seemed to believe that the mere fact of his election would create an economic miracle. He told Western Australians just before the election:
I know, you know, that there’s not much wrong in this state. I know, you know, that there’s quite a bit wrong with our country right now but there’s almost nothing, my friends, wrong with our country that a change of government wouldn’t be improved.
Clearly he had no concept of the headwinds that were already threatening the mining industry.
He did go on to say—and this is, I guess, one of the few election commitments that he has kept—that he would model his government on WA's Barnett government. He certainly has done that. Like WA, we have seen deficits skyrocketing, unemployment rising and dramatic declines in business confidence and business investment. Very critically, the unemployment rate in WA has increased from 4.6 per cent to 6.1 per cent since this government has been elected. So that is 25,000 more people unemployed in Western Australia. Indeed, most people in Western Australia believe that those figures are really underreporting the real impact of the economic downturn, with the reality of greater unemployment being masked by the fact that many people are still working through redundancy payments.
On economic growth, he promised that we were going to build a stronger economy, but in reality economic growth has declined to just over two per cent. Indeed, the state final demand in Western Australia, which excludes exports and therefore provides us with a clearer picture of the domestic economy, fell by 2.6 per cent in the year to June 2015.
We look at business and consumer confidence in Western Australia. Seventy-five per cent of businesses in the most recent CCI survey said that they expected that the economy would deteriorate in the coming year—that is 75 per cent. I guess that is matched by the Roy Morgan business confidence indicators that came out recently, which showed that there had been a plummeting from 136 points to just 102 points in August 2015. Consumers are also pessimistic. Fifty-six per cent of respondents to a CCI survey of consumer confidence predicted that the economy would worsen during the year.
We all accept that commodity prices are not within the control of government, but we do expect a government to have a bigger vision for our state than simply cutting the wages of baristas and taking steps that actually undermine the diversification of our economy. We look at what is happening with the renewable energy industry. WA has—or we had—a very vibrant renewable energy industry in solar, in wave, in wind and, indeed, in the development of battery technology. But since the Abbott government came in, over the space of 2014, we lost almost 1,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector as a direct result of Tony Abbott's systematic attacks on the renewable energy industry. I could go on and talk about the comments that have been made by renewable industry leaders across Western Australia about how this industry has been taken backwards by the negative policies and the uncertainty that was created around the Renewable Energy Target. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion.
Here the member for Perth goes again. Time after time, she will get up in this place and ask the public to un-remember what the Labor Party did when in government. In fact, the government that she was a part of lost government because people were asked to name three achievements of the Labor state government that had been in for two terms, and people could not think of three things.
Let me offer up an analogous parable that serves this motion well. Imagine the member for Perth as the ringmaster in a circus. In that circus no care is given to how many shows there are, or how good the show is, or how happy the viewer is. No money is put into the upkeep of the tent. But everyone gets a pay rise. Pretty soon the tent will begin to tear, the performers will seek a more challenging role, the customers will go and the only ones left will be the clowns—the Labor clowns. That is how the state Labor Party ran the WA economy. Labor celebrated the spending on recurrent expenditure and savagely underinvested in public infrastructure for schools, hospitals, and roads. More damning still, for all the years that the WA Labor Party were in power they never seemed capable of what the former US President George Herbert Walker Bush called 'the vision thing'.
Between 2007-08 and 2013-14 Western Australia's population grew at the fastest rate of all states and over that period increased by nearly 20 per cent, or around 410,000 people. The WA government have addressed the needs of a rapidly growing population, while at the same time they have broadened the economic base and transformed the infrastructure base of the state. Perth has taken its rightful place on the world stage and has attracted global companies to establish new head offices. The WA state government have invested in world-class hospitals, schools, sporting facilities and cultural attractions. Since 2009 they have provided $5.2 billion in Royalties for Regions funding to support those communities which fuel the economic engine of our state. Since 2009 the Barnett government has invested $4.4 billion on roads, $2 billion on public transport, $7.1 billion on electricity infrastructure and over $100 million to support cycling across the state.
And so, when the member for Perth speaks in her motion of state net debt going from $3.6 billion in 2008 to $30 billion in 2015,·she doesn't know or appreciate the difference between good and bad debt. She is not recognising the crippling inequity inherent in the GST distributions. Building critical productivity-enhancing infrastructure such as the Perth Freight Link is an investment in the future health of the WA economy. It is good debt. On the GST, revenue from GST grants is also forecast to decline in 2015-16. As in 2014-15, the distribution of GST will exacerbate revenue volatility rather than smooth it, as the process was intended to do and as the Commonwealth Grants Commission claims it should do.
Forty thousand additional jobs have been created in Western Australia despite the slowdown in the mining sector. Our population is still growing at an annualised 2.4 per cent, easily the highest in the nation. When one looks to the West, one sees a prime example of a leader, in Colin Barnett, and a prime example of good government. When the slowdown started and revenues dipped, the government sought to cut into waste and bureaucracy, not critical front-line services or productive infrastructure. WA under this good government will lead the way for the country in going from the mining boom to the dining boom. I am glad the member moved the motion, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about my great state of Western Australia and an opportunity to talk about good government in action.
It is with some humour that you hear the member opposite refer to the net debt of a state jumping from $3.6 billion to just $30 billion, while saying that the additional $26 billion is quality debt as opposed to that very bad $3.6 billion in debt! The additional $26.4 billion is quality debt? What nonsense! What we have seen in Western Australia over the last decade has been profligate spending on projects of passion for premiers and not projects of infrastructure for the meaningful development of Western Australia.
We have seen vanity investments, while the members opposite know full well that investments in schools and hospitals have suffered as a consequence of these choices. We have seen the AAA credit rating of Western Australia disappear. We saw the hard work in budget management that had been done and understood by successive treasurers of Western Australia undone by a wilful Premier—not by the treasurers, but by a wilful premier who has refused to accept, although he understands the laws of economics, that the laws of economics apply to him. In that single point of ignorance, the Premier has driven investments that have not been prudent investments in the interests of Western Australia.
From time to time, we do see the need of state governments to invest in meaningful infrastructure—in roads, in rail, in port—and we also see the needs of premiers and of governments to make tough calls on spending decisions. We see time and time again the need to be prudent in front-line services. But when we see a blow-out in debt from an inherited debt of under $4 billion to currently a debt in the order of $30 billion and increasing, all of us in this place should be alarmed. We should not simply use those numbers as political ping-pong balls to belt across the table here. We should be concerned. If Western Australia were to be reflected in the national economy, that would be $300 billion worth of debt. We should all be concerned in this place, because what that level of debt does to Western Australia is it compromises the ability to deliver services through schools, it compromises the ability to deliver services through hospitals and it compromises the ability to have vision for the future to make sure that we can invest in the productive infrastructure of the future, as opposed to the vanity projects that we now see springing up around Western Australia.
I know that I am in a massive minority when I argue that we do not need to spend $1 billion on a new football oval. I know that that decision has been made and that commitment has been made. But I sat at the football on Saturday in a stadium that is more than equal to the task. I watched a game where, unfortunately, I do not think the Dockers were necessarily equal to the task, but the stadium was. What you learn from that is that once again this a vanity investment, on this occasion of $1 billion for a new football stadium to replace a currently functioning facility. It is an investment choice by state government that is so poorly thought through that it will just send more and more debt to the next generation of schoolteachers and nurses and public servants to try to deal with, as they deal with our kids in schools and sick people in hospitals.
It should be the place for this parliament to stand back and say, 'No; we need to rein this government in.' It is not good enough for members opposite to say, 'Oh, but the GST distribution treats us so badly.' The GST distribution formula was agreed to by a cabinet in Western Australia in the late 1990s of which Colin Barnett was a member. He signed up to this formula. He signed up to this agreement. He signed up to the agreement that has produced the current GST outcome. No cabinet was better informed of that decision than the cabinet of which Colin Barnett was a member. And now we see the Western Australian government continually complaining that it cannot manage its own finances because of the GST. That is not true. It cannot manage its own finances because it is a profligate government that simply spends, that thinks that vanity projects are investment projects in infrastructure for the future and that has decided, in so doing, to take investment in real infrastructure that would benefit Western Australians to investment in vanity projects for the benefit of the Premier.
Let us make no bones about it: this motion is completely about Saturday and not about the future of Western Australia. But, in the end, whatever is said or whatever is proposed by those opposite with regard to this motion will not change the facts that on Saturday the people of Canning will have a very clear distinction in who they want to represent them. There are two choices. On the other side, there is the typical Labor lawyer who could not wait to move out of the area and move up to fashionable Mount Lawley, or wherever he goes. He could not wait to say, 'I don't want to be part of you any longer,' could not wait to move away from his roots. His first instinct was to turn his back on the Canning district. Now he turns back to the people of Canning when he sees that there is something in it for him. This is a history of self-service, and the people of Canning should keep that in mind on Saturday.
In contrast, there is our candidate, Andrew Hastie, a former SAS commissioned officer with a track record of determined service to his nation. This is a man that will pursue the interests of the people of Canning, and he will do so in the same selfless manner in which he fought and looked after his troops. I can see Andrew Hastie bringing the same approach, the same determined focus, as the great Don Randall brought to his representation of the people of Canning. As I said, the contrast could not be more obvious and clear. It is no wonder that Labor has promised multimillions of dollars around Canning trying to distract the people of Canning from the key issue of: who do you want as your elected member—someone who is more interested in themselves, or Andrew Hastie, a man with a distinguished record of putting others before himself and in the most difficult of circumstances?
But I am talking to this motion. Given that Western Australia is a state strong with commodities, I will speak first about the absolute deceit that this motion is all about. Let us talk about the classic Labor line about squandering the mining boom, which appears in the motion. I do not know how they can even say this with a straight face. There was a mining boom while they were in office. They may choose to forget that there was an election in 2007 that they won and that their reign lasted for six years. In 2007 they were left a surplus and assets in the bank. All of that was gone by 2013. Massive debt and deficit are the legacy of Labor in government. On this allegation of squandering the mining boom, how about those iron ore prices and therefore the reflected tax and royalty revenues during Labor's six years of wasteful spending? In November 2007 the cost of iron ore was $40 per tonne. By January 2008 it had gone up to $70. By March 2010 it was up to $190 per tonne. So when they talk in this place about squandering the mining boom, the Labor Party should really look in the mirror. The Howard government ran surpluses and, when possible, returned money to the people. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent everything and then could not even balance the books when the iron ore prices were almost five times what they were for the Howard government. So Labor knows how to spend and waste. That is the legacy of Labor. Apart from the massive differences between our candidate, Andrew Hastie, and others, the people of Canning should remember what Labor did with the iron ore revenues and the strong budgetary position that they were left in 2007.
It is interesting that the deception this motion tries to advance on employment is put forward by the Labor Party. I have already mentioned iron ore prices and what Labor did to the economy when those prices were at historical highs. But let me explain to those who would rather advance a political argument than a factual argument. We know that so many jobs were generated out of the construction side of mining projects. Investment in such projects is driven by returns based on commodity prices. When prices come down due to issues in China and elsewhere, further projects are no longer so attractive; therefore they do not go ahead. As existing construction projects finish and go to production, more construction does not occur, due to the investment environment. Our getting rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax has helped but it does not restore record commodity prices. The investment reality has an impact on jobs. When those opposite say here that they can change that, they are being utterly deceptive. I welcome the recent drop in unemployment. But what this country needs is the free trade agreement with China and the opening of or better access to a billion-person market. That is what Western Australia and Australia need. I note that the Labor Party hate free trade. They are always talking against this FTA—not the great reformers of Labor past, of course, but the wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade union movement who are the economic isolationists currently on the opposition benches. A better future for this country can be achieved through the diversification that the FTA offers and that those opposite oppose so strongly. For the best representation for Canning, the choice is clear. Andrew Hastie brings service and dedication to Canning. I urge the people of Canning to support him on Saturday.
Yesterday saw one of the most absurd media stunts I have seen for a long time: the Prime Minister purporting to open the Gateway WA road project in Perth. This is a fantastic road project—an upgrade of the roads around Perth Airport worth nearly $1 billion. There he was, the Prime Minister, beaming as he touted for votes in Saturday's Canning by-election, announcing that the project had been completed and was an example of everything the government was doing for the people of Western Australia. There are only two problems with that. The first is that this government had nothing to do with this project—did not add an additional cent, let alone a dollar, to this project, which was funded 2011. The member for Cowan was actually at the sod-turning at the beginning of major construction with me way back then.
Thanks for inviting me.
We invited coalition members—unlike this government, which invited no-one from the Labor side, even though the project was initiated by the former federal Labor government. There is a second problem with this opening: the project is not finished. It will not be finished until next year. They have brought forward the opening, pretending it is all done in advance, so that they could do a media statement. But they could not do anything other than that, because not a single project anywhere in the country, let alone Western Australia, that was initiated by this government has been completed—not one. So what we have seen is a magical infrastructure reannouncement tour that never sleeps. It is like a rock'n'roll tour of a band with little to offer except lame cover songs. Well, it is time for a new playlist. Indeed, those opposite may well be looking for a new band leader.
Let us look at projects in Western Australia and who has actually supported building infrastructure. The Great Northern Highway was announced by Labor in the 2013 budget—and reannounced by this government in December 2013 and on multiple occasions since. The North West Coastal Highway was funded by the former Labor government in the 2013 budget—and reannounced several times since. The Swan Valley Bypass is a good one. They decided, in order to hide the fact that it was a reannouncement, to give it a new name. It has a new name, Northlink, but it is not a new project. The Tonkin Highway was announced with a $140 million commitment in 2013 by the former government—and reannounced by this government in February 2014. The Leach Highway was announced and funded by the former Labor government—and reannounced in February 2014. The Esperance port access project—$60 million—was announced and funded by the former Labor government and commenced construction, when I was present, on 16 March 2012. They reannounced it as if it was new in February 2014 and—bingo—it was opened on 2 April 2014. It was a great project done two months. Unfortunately, of course, it was almost completed at the time when they pretended it was new. There are other projects: the Great Eastern Highway in the member for Cowan's electorate, the Great Northern Highway at Port Hedland, the Bunbury port access road, grain rail freight and of course public transport as well with the visionary Perth City Link project—a project that would never have been funded by those opposite, because they do not believe in funding urban public transport. We have further committed $145 million to the Community Connect South project, the duplication of Armadale Road and construction of the North Lake Road bridge. They finally caught up on the weekend and agreed to match Labor's commitment—again, Labor leading from opposition because of the failure of the government to provide leadership on anything. Labor has committed $25 million to upgrade Denny Avenue. We also have committed $2 million to advance planning work on the Kwinana Outer Harbour through a submission to Infrastructure Australia. Those opposite want to build the Perth Freight Link to a port that is full to capacity. They are not doing the proper planning work and are completely hopeless. It is no wonder that they are struggling in Canning, as they are right around the entire nation.
Debate adjourned.
At the outset I should say that Labor's position is to support the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015. I expect that would not be surprising to anyone who has been following the debate on this bill, given that two-thirds of the bill are measures from previous Labor budgets.
The bill implements previous Labor integrity measures on capital gains tax, rollovers and lost member superannuation accounts and it unifies the tax treatment of all civilian and Australian government employees who work overseas.
It is greatly pleasing that the Abbott government is proceeding with some of the measures that Labor had planned to implement. Up until recently you could be forgiven for thinking that the sole raison d'etre of the Abbott government was to tear down prior achievements of Labor governments, so it is good to see a tax and superannuation laws amendment bill that indeed implements these sensible integrity measures.
Going to schedule 1, improving the integrity of the scrip-for-scrip rollover, we welcome the government's move to implement our integrity measures on scrip-for-scrip rollovers. The scrip-for-scrip rollover regime ensures that tax considerations are not an impediment to takeovers or mergers involving companies or trusts.
Recent court cases have shed light on the tax minimisation opportunities arising from ambiguity in the existing legislation. This reform, first announced by Labor in 2012, prevents entities from indefinitely deferring capital gains tax obligations and brings greater consistency to the taxation of trusts.
Schedule 2 is the exemption of income earned in overseas employment. The opposition is comfortable with the government's efforts to boost the integrity of our personal income tax system by standardising the tax treatment for workers delivering overseas development assistance. This integrity measure improves the consistency of our personal income tax system by upholding the principle that Australians should pay tax on their earnings somewhere.
This provision was originally introduced to ensure that aid workers working overseas were not taxed on their income both in Australia and in the source country. However, the provision no longer serves this purpose, with Australians working overseas often able to avoid income tax in both jurisdictions.
While we welcome efforts to tighten the tax net, I would contrast the government's approach to the issue of double taxation of individuals with its approach to the double taxation of corporations. Earlier this year Labor announced a multinational tax package, which included a measure for tackling hybrid instruments. What we were allowing the Australian Taxation Office to do under our proposal was to look at how a hybrid instrument was treated by an overseas jurisdiction, essentially to ensure that a hybrid instrument could not, effectively, avoid tax in multiple jurisdictions.
So it is striking that, while the government are willing to tackle this issue in the case of aid workers, they are not willing to tackle the same issue when it comes to big multinational corporations. The principle is a sensible one. Multinational corporations are looking at how a hybrid instrument is treated by the tax regime of another country and how it is treated by the Australian Taxation Office. The ATO should not be blind to the way in which an overseas tax office treats a hybrid instrument.
Unfortunately, while the Treasurer has been talking about acting on multinational tax for over a year we, again, see promises, coming out today, that he will act. But we are yet to see actual legislation. By contrast, Labor's multinational tax plan, announced in the first half of this parliamentary term, raises more than $7 billion over the decade, is informed by work in the OECD and is carefully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Schedule 3 of this bill is the small lost member account threshold. Labor will support raising the threshold at which the government collects small lost member superannuation accounts.
Labor invented Australia's universal superannuation system and it was hard fought by the coalition at the time. When the Keating government introduced universal superannuation in the early 1990s those opposite railed against universal superannuation. They promised, before the 1996 election, not to tinker with superannuation but then froze the superannuation contribution rate throughout the period of the Howard government.
Again, history repeated itself because, in 2013, the opposition promised that they would not make adverse unexpected changes to superannuation but went ahead and froze the superannuation contribution rate at 9½ per cent, not allowing it to continue on its planned trajectory through to 12 per cent, which would have guaranteed a more dignified retirement for many Australians.
The system of collecting lost member accounts is sensible. It is easy for Australians to be reunited with their lost superannuation accounts, using a simple tool available on the tax office website. But the decision that the government has made in the past is that, when accounts fall below a certain amount, they should be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that they are not completely eaten up in fees and charges. Many young people know the experience of moving from casual job to casual job, ending up with a motley of superannuation accounts and wanting to consolidate those accounts.
Before we had the lost super regime, those accounts would often just be gone within a matter of months. Thanks to the lost super regime, those accounts, when found, actually contain a reasonable chunk of money—about what the individual put in.
In May 2012 Labor increased the threshold at which an account would be shifted to the Australian Taxation Office from $200 to $2,000. In the 2013 budget Labor proposed an incremental increase in the threshold from $2,000 to $6,000. I note in passing that, when it comes to unclaimed moneys, the coalition is happy to run a scare campaign and crazy talk of 'trousering', with the suggestion that anyone who believes in a different duration after which bank accounts should be moved to the government is somehow trying to steal people's money. At the same time, we have a government bill in the House whose effect is going to be to move more superannuation accounts into the government.
The principle in both cases is the same: we want to make sure that people who have lost their bank account or superannuation account do not find it again but discover there is nothing in it. Yet we also want to guard against the possibility that someone who simply has not accessed an account for a while may not want it transferred to the government. The thresholds—duration or financial as they are—aim to get that balance right, but the government is clearly pursuing a somewhat different approach to superannuation accounts from what it is with bank accounts.
In the spirit of constructive bipartisanship Labor will support this measure, and we do so knowing that, as of 30 June this year, over 14 million Australians have a super fund account and approximately 45 per cent of these people have more than one superannuation account. We know through figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority that the median figure for fees and charges for low-cost superannuation accounts is $532 a year. So, if you have a super balance of $1,000, you will see it entirely eroded by fees and charges in a couple of years. That is the principle of lost super laws, which see accounts moved to the tax office when they fall below a certain threshold—currently $2,000 and, under this bill, $6,000. These measures will, hopefully, ensure that low-wage workers and those working casual jobs are able to retire in more dignity knowing that their accounts have not been eaten away by fees and charges.
At the same time, you cannot talk abut superannuation in this place without acknowledging that there is only one party of government in this parliament who believes that our superannuation tax concessions are not fair and are not sustainable. The age pension is set to grow around five per cent a year over the next four years. The government says that the age pension is out of control because of that, but superannuation tax concessions are growing at more than four times this rate. The earnings concessions alone are set to double over the next four years to more than $30 billion. It will soon be the case that we spend more on super tax concessions than we spend on the age pension entirely. A Grattan Institute report on tax reform found that more than half of the benefits of superannuation tax concessions go to the top 20 per cent of households. Indeed, the top one per cent of households gain more from our super tax concessions than the bottom 40 per cent.
To improve the fairness and sustainability of our superannuation system, the opposition has made clear that we will ensure that earnings in excess of $75,000 in the retirement phase are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent rather than being tax-free. This represents a partial unwinding of one of Peter Costello's many imprudent decisions in the later phase of the Howard government, this one removing entirely the tax-free status of earnings in the pension phase. That is a measure which has disproportionately benefited high-income earners and done little to take pressure off the age pension but instead had the effect of acting as a windfall for those who are able to recycle their earnings through the superannuation system. Labor does not propose to entirely reverse that Costello decision of 2006, but we do propose, if we are fortunate enough to win government, to ensure that earnings over $75,000—and just the marginal amount over $75,000—are subject to a 15 per cent tax rate.
We have also indicated that we will lower the threshold for the 15 per cent high-income superannuation charge from $300,000 to $250,000. Those two measures together save the budget in excess of $14 billion over the decade. They are responsible, they are fair and they will put our superannuation system on a more sustainable footing for the future.
Labor are hardly the only ones who believe that our superannuation settings need to change. We can go through those who support some changes to our superannuation system and start with the Secretary to the Treasury, John Fraser. The government's own tax white paper asked the question, 'Are Australia's superannuation tax concessions sustainable?' A range of groups across the political spectrum have called for the government to engage in a sensible debate over superannuation tax concessions. They include the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, AustralianSuper, the Grattan Institute and Rice Warner actuaries. Indeed, the recent reform summit co-sponsored by The Australian newspaper and the Financial Review newspaper saw as part of its communique a recognition that we need to look carefully at our superannuation tax concessions. We need to make sure that they are fair for this generation and fair for generations to come such as the students now filing into the public gallery above us.
What does the government have to say about these unfair and unsustainable superannuation concession? It depends on who you ask in the government, as with many things. The member for North Sydney refuses to rule out changes, but the Prime Minister is slamming the door on him, saying that there will be no changes whatsoever. As usual, the member for Kooyong would like to have it both ways—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question to shadow minister. Would he mind sharing with the House what he deems to be fair in relation to this bill?
Order! You need to ask the member if he would accept a question.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Would the member for Fraser be generous enough to accept a question on fairness and what he considers to be fairness?
Is the member for Fraser willing to give way?
If the member follows proper procedure, I would be pleased to accept a question from him.
On behalf of the opposition: would the shadow minister, the learned gentleman that he is, like to share with the parliament and the people of Australia what he thinks is acceptable, what he believes is fair and what he would do in government?
I thank the member for Fisher for the question, and I assure the House that this is not a question I wrote earlier, although it is indeed an excellent one. Labor's policy on superannuation is one which has been announced on early in this term of government, in order to promote exactly the sort of healthy public debate that I know the member for Fisher believes in. We recognise that superannuation changes are not universally popular, and that is why we have begun the community conversation about Labor's changes. Yes, they raise $14 billion over the next decade, but they do so by reversing a Peter Costello change—which I hope the member for Fisher no longer believes was a fiscally prudent one—and by changing the high-income superannuation charge.
But the real question here is where the government stands. It is unusual for a member of the opposition to be saying this, but I honestly do not know. The member for North Sydney does not want to rule out any changes, but the Prime Minister does want to rule out changes. The member for Kooyong wants to stay on the good side of both of them, so he will rule things out or in according to which day the of week it is and which radio interview he is doing at the time. We know indeed that the government was considering making superannuation changes right up until the day Labor announced its policy package. Indeed, plausibly, some of the talented Treasury officials sitting in the boxes today were working on the memorandums that we know, thanks to freedom of information laws, were being sent up to the government during this period. We know that there were four briefs that went to the government in the lead-up to the 2015 budget, but they stop on a particular day. No prizes for guessing which day that is—that is the day that Labor made its superannuation announcement. How is that for a coincidence?
As always, we have the government playing politics over the policy. The Prime Minister rolled the Treasurer on the issue of superannuation tax concessions—admittedly, a feeling that the Treasurer must be getting used to by now—and doubled down against any change, saying, 'We aren't ever going to increase the taxes on super. We aren't ever going to increase the restrictions on super.' As with some of the Prime Minister's statements, that needs a little parsing. What he means when he says, 'We aren't ever going to increase the restrictions on super', is that the coalition will not tackle one of the fastest-growing areas of tax expenditure to get the budget under control. He means that the government will not act to make superannuation fairer and more sustainable. He means the government will continue a system where the vast majority of superannuation concessions go to the most well-off, and the lowest paid Australians get nothing.
Let us be clear. When we are talking about superannuation, as this bill does, we need to recognise the role of the super tax concessions. They do two things. They recognise the public benefit in reducing the number of people who claim the age pension, and they recognise the public benefit in having a larger national pool of savings. That second public benefit is tangible and was important in the global financial crisis but surely must be accorded less weight than the first. For people with multimillions in their superannuation accounts, I say, 'Good luck to you. Congratulations, but you should not necessarily be claiming the same superannuation tax concessions as you did in the past.'
Labor's policy is costed and sustainable and is something which I hope the government will engage on. I hope the government will go back to those excellent briefs, which I am sure were being prepared for them by the Department of the Treasury in the lead-up to Labor's announcement, and come to a bipartisan consensus with Labor on making sure that our super tax concessions can be sustainable in the future. We have no problem with the government's proposal to increase the threshold for collecting lost members' accounts, but we want to make sure that the government engages in the bigger conversation over super concessions. It is such an important conversation, particularly for those of us on this side of the House who were responsible for creating universal superannuation and who will continue to defend a strong and accessible superannuation system. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government's failure to address unfair and unsustainable superannuation tax concessions."
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I rise to talk on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015. This bill addresses very many important issues about the integrity of our tax system. For most of us, accounting—if you studied economics and accountancy in any shape or form in tertiary studies—is a pretty dry topic but, unfortunately, tax changes everything. Tax is what delivers the nation's finances, to pay for all our responsibilities, whether they be the Medicare system, hospitals, defence forces, roads—you name it. So we have to have a tax system that is (1) not punitive and (2) has its own essential integrity.
There are three issues in this legislation that we need to pay attention to, and I will take the third one first, because in my electorate and in my experience it is the one that affects most people. That is the small lost member account threshold. It is not uncommon for most employees in this day and age to move around many jobs in their careers. During that time, they are often signed up to industry default super funds or different funds from the ones in their previous employment, and many fail to have these funds rolled over into the next one or to have the new employer paid contributions put back into the existing superannuation fund. So it is not uncommon for many people to have several small superannuation funds, all being hit with fees and charges or having contributions deducted for insurance policies that many of them did not even know were part of their superannuation policy. As a result, these deductions amount to more than what is being accumulated or, in some cases, more than what is being contributed.
So I think this is a very wise manoeuvre for many people. It redefines an 'idle account' as one that has not been accessed for five years, and it facilitates rolling those idle funds into the tax department, where no fees and charges are levied. In fact, there will also be a portal where people can identify and get hold of these accounts and remove them from the tax office with interest paid, which is quite different from the 'trouser tax', where it was bank deposits that were being taken into the tax department. I think this is a sensible amendment, and people will really value it, particularly a lot of people with low wages who have many accounts lying idle just being eroded by interest charges, fees for management and, as I mentioned, the not uncommon occurrence of a super fund being associated with an insurance policy for people who do not know they are paying for it. This will be a big benefit.
The second matter is the scrip-for-scrip rollover provisions. These will be amended so that the tax liability for shares or interests, when traded in mergers or acquisitions, does not occur immediately. That is a bad thing. If a company is being taken over and there are shares being traded for new shares, there is a perceived financial benefit, but then, if the perceived benefit is put to the merged or acquired company straightaway, it can destroy the benefit of the merger altogether. But we do not want the other side of the coin, where the entity, the trust or the new company permanently avoids any tax liability, which is what our very clever accountants can sometimes do by issuing a large amount of debt or so-called thin capitalisation.
So this is another integrity measure. It does not sound very sexy, but it is really important because the amount of money that can be sheltered in these arrangements is huge. Most of the people in my electorate, who pay tax as they earn, get really annoyed when they see the use of thin capitalisation, transfer pricing or complex accounting manoeuvres to defer the liability of companies. Every company should pay its fair share, just like every citizen should pay their fair share. So a principle of keeping the integrity of our tax system in place is addressed through this.
The third issue is double taxation. Legislation introduced 70 years ago was put in place so that people do not pay tax overseas in one country and then have to pay it in Australia and vice versa, so they are not getting taxed twice. But there was a loophole where, if you were overseas working for the government for more than 90 days, not only did you miss out on being taxed doubly but the taxing did not happen at all. That was a very sweet spot for some individuals. This amendment will allow tax to be paid in Australia on your earnings and allowances if you are in that situation, working for the government, but it does not change it if you are an ADF member, a Defence Force person or a registered charity working overseas for the government.
So these are sensible amendments, which I commend to the House. But, before I finish, I would like to just make some comments on those made by the member for Fraser. The Labor Party's proposal is a tax on earnings above $75,000 at 15 per cent as they come out of a super fund, then changing the thresholds down to $250,000. I am very concerned by this because it just pinpoints the attitude of the other side towards superannuation. It is seen as a piggy bank to fix up all the problems that they have created by reckless fiscal abandonment of sound, sensible budgetary measures.
The superannuation holdings of Australian citizens should not be treated as a piggy bank for fixing debt and deficit problems. If you are going to tax superannuation payments, which have been taxed at either 15 or 30 per cent going in and then at 15 per cent during their earnings and accumulation phase, and if it is to be treated as a pension when you take it out, the logical progression from that is that you should also tax the pension. Or, if you put money into a bank deposit account or an interest-bearing account after you have paid your tax, which is pretty normal behaviour, when you take it out of a bank savings account, if you are taking more than $75,000, you should be taxed an extra 15 per cent on it—follow the logic of their argument.
People have paid tax. Superannuation contributions get a tax benefit because the nation has encouraged people to do it. That is why they have superannuation funds. It is a way of avoiding the government having to provide a pension. That is the whole aim of it. If you destroy the benefit and put another 15 per cent on it, the amount that people put into super will shrink. It then defeats the purpose for which it was created. As I mentioned, superannuation fund holdings of Australian citizens should not be treated as a piggy bank for the government to fix our debt and deficit problems. People have paid tax on it—yes, it is less than what the top marginal tax rate is, but it was created that way so that people would put money into it and would then look after themselves rather than turning to the pension.
I commend to the House the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015. There are three separate measures in it which make a lot of common sense. There is fairness and integrity at the very heart of these changes, and I commend them to the House.
I take exception to a few things that the member for Lyne said, but I will address just one of them today. He said that tax law amendment bills are not sexy, but they actually are. I have said a number of times in this House that the tax law amendment bills and the tax and superannuation amendment bills are a pleasure to speak on because they deal with the operation of the government. Governments introduce pieces of legislation that make changes. As those changes are bedded in you quite often see small changes in the tax law as the community adjusts and as policy adjusts slightly. For example, you will see that shortly after a government provides funding after a natural disaster a TLAB come into the parliament to ensure that those act of grace payments are not taxed.
These bills are quite interesting and are usually filled with a range things that reflect the policy of the government over the previous years. The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015—known as TSLAB4, a very sexy name—is a very good reflection of what this government is up to and what this government is not up to. I am going to talk though some elements of this bill while keeping that in mind. It is a very interesting reflection on this government. In many ways what is in this bill reflects the policy agenda of this government as a whole.
The bill has three schedules. Schedule 1 improves the integrity for the script for script rollover. This does not refer to a policy of the Liberal government but actually adjusts a policy introduced in the last years of the Labor government. It was a Labor government measure from the 2012-13 budget that made it harder for companies and trusts to avoid capital gains tax. The purpose of the script for script rollover, which is the policy from 2012-13, is to ensure that tax considerations are not an impediment to takeovers or merges involving companies or trusts. If shares or trust interests are exchanged for similar interests in another entity in a takeover or merger, the script for script rollover defers taxing a capital gain on the disposal of the script until the disposal of the replacement script. That is the kind of language you find in TSLABs.
You find that sexy? I am concerned.
I actually do. I actually think that it is really interesting. I can see that there is another member of the government who does not think that tax law is sexy, but they are wrong and should get into it. It is really interesting.
Anyway, it was a policy that responded to the behaviour of various companies and improved the integrity of the tax system at that point. This small change in schedule 1 deals with the fact that in certain cases where the same person or group has influence over the acquired entity and the inquiring entity they were able to defer the capital gains tax indefinitely. This little piece of tax law improves something that was introduced back in 2012-13 and improves the integrity of the tax system. It is an important small change.
The interesting thing about this is that, like so many of the bills this House introduces, it refers to what the Labor government actually did. Many times last year I sat in caucus looking at the list of bills that were going to be introduced into the House, and unless they had the words 'abolish', 'cut' or 'repeal' in them, you could bet that the vast majority of them were actually Labor bills or referred to work that we had done when we were in government that were finally being brought to the House. This is another example of that. This does not reflect on the work of this government; this actually reflects on the good work of the previous government. That is schedule 1.
Schedule 2 is actually something specific to this government. Schedule 3 is not, but schedule 2 is. As a general rule Australian resident individuals are taxed on their worldwide income through the Australian personal income tax system. As the member for Fraser said, the Labor opposition—and I assume the Abbott government—agrees that a person should pay tax in one jurisdiction or another. We have been very strong on that. We have also been strong on corporations having the same responsibility. The government are less strong on that, but they are very strong on individuals paying tax in one jurisdiction or another. It would be nice to see some TSLABs come up that reflected their work in corporate payments, not just individuals.
This was originally introduced to provide relief from double taxation, essentially for aid workers and people who worked overseas for not less than 91 continuous days. Tax law always says 'not less than' and 'not more than'. It is interesting language. You have to pause and think about it for a bit, but it is quite interesting. That was its purpose We have found since then that the measure is no longer really applicable so it is no longer necessary. Essentially, schedule 2 just makes a small change to the law relating to people working overseas and it will raise $6.7 million over the next four years. It is a very minor change. It will affect a small number of people. It will raise $6.7 million over four years. It is the kind of mechanical work that we would normally see governments do.
By the way, in past governments we would very rarely discuss this kind of legislation in this House. This kind of bill was usually debated in the Federation Chamber. It is very rarely debated in the main House, because we usually have more important legislation to consider here. This government does not actually have much on the legislative agenda. For example, if you look at the day to day we have got the abolition of bills that have not been in use for decades, we have got the removal of commas, we have got the removal of a few hyphens, we have got this bill and we have got another bill that rolls back tax transparency legislation for private owned companies from the disclosure of taxpayer information—and that is it on the agenda in this House today.
Schedule 3 is also something that refers back. There are only three schedules in this bill. Schedule 3 refers back, again, to the work of the previous government, not the work of this government. Schedule 3 is about small lost member accounts. It does something that was introduced by Labor. Back in 2013, Labor announced that the threshold for super accounts which would be transferred to the ATO would rise to $4,000 from 31 December 2015 and from $6,000 from 31 December 2016.
This small but significant change in schedule 3 reflects the policy of the Labor government back in 2013 and it is important. Again, it reflects the extraordinary amount of work that Labor did in the super arena in its time in government. It does not reflect the work that this government has done at all. It reflects the work that the previous government did and brings it two years later into Australian tax law. Essentially Labor did an incredible amount of work, having introduced the super compulsory superannuation nearly two decades ago now.
We found that a large number of people had a variety of super policies, some very small, some that they had forgotten about. Some people went to work for one employer, a super scheme was started, they moved on to another employer and some of us—and I was one of them—had a number of super accounts that were sitting out there in the ether. I could not remember where they were; they were hard to find. We found that there were millions of super accounts that were essentially sitting idle with large fees coming out every year and eroding the value of those super accounts. We did an extraordinary amount of work in government on assisting people to find their lost super. We set up processes and systems where people could easily identify past superannuation accounts and amalgamate them if they chose to in order to keep their fees low.
This small change to the superannuation law increases the value of the accounts that are now transferred to the ATO from $2,000 to $6,000 over the next couple of years. This means that those accounts will be transferred to the ATO. If a person finds those accounts again, they can have them back again with interest at CPI. It ensures that the small superannuation accounts, of which there are many in Australia, are not eaten up by fees. It is a very nice piece of policy. Again, it demonstrates the previous Labor government's commitment to making our superannuation system sustainable and fair.
I cannot say though that we have had the same commitment to super from the current government; in fact, quite the contrary. Even though they say they are in favour of superannuation; their actions show something else. They claim that they will not touch super but actually they already have. The coalition wound back superannuation tax concessions for some of our lowest-income workers, some 3.6 million workers, that benefited from the low-income superannuation concession earning less than $37,000 per annum. They now virtually receive no concession on their superannuation contributions thanks to the government's decision to scrap the low-income super contributions scheme.
This is a government that claims to be supportive of superannuation, that proudly defends some of the highest income earners from superannuation but at the same time hacks away at the savings on the earnings of people who earn the least in this country, a pattern that we have seen from this government over and over again. When we see the government come in here with cuts on their mind, you can bet they will be aimed at the people who earn the least. You can bet they will be aimed at pensioners, for example. Unable in their first budget to really hit pensioners as hard as they wanted to, they moved up to attack part pensioners in the second budget. They are still leaving alone the people that earn $100,000 or more. They are leaving those alone. They are protecting those, they are defending those at the same time that they have already ripped away superannuation concessions from 3.6 million workers that earn less and $37,000 a year.
I would love to see some TSLABs in this House that actually do reflect a government that is looking forward. I would love to see TSLABs in this House that deal with things that this government is building. I would love to see that. This is not one of them. This TSLAB has three schedules, two of which refer to the work of the past government not this one. It is a shame. I think the Australian people need more from this government. It is about time they tried to deliver. Perhaps good government can start tomorrow.
I can reassure the member for Parramatta that this government is about letting business get on with their work and lowering the barriers to growth. That is our focus. It is about reducing taxation. It is about reducing regulation. It is setting our economy up for the 21st Century through the negotiation and finalisation of three free-trade agreements, two of which have now been entered into law and one, we hope, the other side will get out of the way and let us get on with that one as well so we can continue to set this economy up for the 21st Century. The Labor Party do not believe in a 21st Century economy; they believe in a 20th Century economy. We want to make sure that we set this country up for the future. That is what these amendments do to this TSLAB No. 4. It requires the government to tidy and trim the laws around taxation, keeping and maintaining an efficient and fair system for all Australians.
This bill will put in place a number of changes from taxation exemptions to superannuation. Firstly, the government is moving to keep a more common-sense approach to Australia's merger and acquisition laws. They are doing this under schedule 1, which is about improving the integrity of scrip for scrip rollover. What does this mean? This measure strengthens the integrity in the scrip for scrip rollover rules to ensure that they are better targeted and work as intended.
Subdivision 124M of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 contains the scrip-for-scrip rollover rules, which provide tax relief in certain merger and acquisition transactions. A scrip-for-scrip rollover is available for restructures where an entity or individual exchanges original shares or interest it holds in an entity for new shares or interest in another entity. The scrip-for-scrip-rollover aims to ensure that tax considerations are not an impediment to mergers and acquisitions of companies and trusts. The scrip-for-scrip rollover operates to defer the tax otherwise payable on the exchange of the original shares and interest until such time as the new shares or interest are disposed of. Integrity measures exist to ensure that tax payable is not deferred indefinitely. Tax relief will not be available where the same person or entity controls both the acquiring entity and the entity being acquired.
What, in short, will this mean? It will mean that we see an improvement in the integrity of the system by removing the ability for some entities to access tax relief from the Australian taxpayer when two merging companies are owned by the same people or business. It does this by making definitions clearer and that the integrity structure cannot be circumvented by businesses, trusts or companies. These changes will make our system stronger and easier to understand. Common sense for businesses will create growth and jobs for the economy.
Another amendment implemented by this bill is the tightening of income tax exemptions for some employees who are working overseas. Employees of an Australian government agency who work overseas for more than 90 continuous days delivering official development assistance will no longer be able to claim an income tax exemption on the income they earn delivering official development assistance overseas. This amendment is estimated to result in a revenue gain of approximately $6.7 million over the forward estimates. When will this change take effect? The amendment will apply from 1 July 2016, commencing in the 2016 income year. It will make it clear that no Australian Defence Force or Australian Federal Police personnel access an income tax exemption under a different provision in the income tax law, and that provision will not be affected by this amendment.
Currently, this exemption can be used for Australian public servants or government employees who operate overseas for more than 90 days. Originally, the exemption was aimed at preventing double taxation where a worker was going to be caught by taxation at home and overseas. However, these situations no longer apply for these workers. What it has become is a tax break for many Australians who will not pay income tax to Australia or the country in which they are working. This is something that the government is looking to close down, as Australians expect all to pay their fair share in tax. I am sure this is something which is shared on all sides of the House. The changes will come into effect from 1 July 2016 and it is expected to provide, as I mentioned before, $6.7 million over the forward estimates. I reiterate, the government would like to make it clear that these changes to the overseas income tax exemption laws will not affect any members of the Australia Defence Force, Australian Federal Police or private charity and aid workers.
The final change being made by these amendments is to the laws around lost superannuation accounts. The ATO has shown that 45 per cent of working Australians have more than one superannuation account. This measure will increase the superannuation account balance threshold below which lost member accounts are transferred to the ATO as unclaimed superannuation money. For super accounts with smaller balances, fees and charges can exceed any investment earnings, leading to erosion of the account balance. This can be particularly problematic for lost super accounts because, in most cases, the members are not aware that they have these accounts and can end up losing money through fee erosion—money that was meant for their retirement. Transferring lost super accounts with low balances to the ATO helps protect these balances and preserves their value until they can be reunited with the member.
This measure was first announced by the former government in the 2013-14 budget. On 6 November 2013, the government announced that it would enact the measure. The government's decision to proceed with the increase to the small or lost member superannuation account threshold is a sensible measure and one which, I think, shows that when members opposite put forward proposals that we think have some merit, we are prepared to look at them and make sure that there are no unintended consequences—not something that the opposition were very good at when they were in government. We have learnt from that. We have looked very closely at where things have been proposed and where we think there are no unintended consequences we have decided to act, and this is what we have done in this situation.
This is simply a by-product of the transition that Australians make between jobs: new accounts get set up and old accounts forgotten. We know that many Australians—up to 70 per cent—simply sign up to a default provider of their employer. Often these forgotten accounts can have substantial amounts of money and every penny counts when it comes to super and your retirement. If you are hanging onto this money and putting in super, obviously you are doing so for 10 or 20 and sometimes 30 years. So every extra dollar that you can save over time obviously adds up and can be worth a substantial amount to you when you finally access your retirement savings.
Currently, these forgotten accounts will be transferred to the ATO for safekeeping after five years if the provider has lost contact with the account owner and the account has less than $2,000.
The benefit of the account being transferred to the ATO is that it can then be held until the original owner is found. While the ATO holds the account, they are not being charged fees or premiums, which ultimately can whittle down these savings. More importantly, the ATO will pay a reclaimed account with interest in line with CPI. I think that is worth reiterating: the ATO will pay a reclaimed account with interest in line with CPI. So, not only are we preserving the superannuation amount and protecting it from freeze, but if the resultant person is found and can be linked back to their superannuation account then the ATO will pay a reclaimed account with interest in line with CPI.
However, $2,000 is quite a small amount as a threshold. Under these changes, the amount will gradually move to $4,000 and then $6,000. This move will mean that more of these forgotten accounts can be captured and held until they find their owner again. This change is complemented by the six other measures that will reduce red tape for superannuation funds by removing redundant reporting obligations and by streamlining some of the lost and unclaimed superannuation administrative arrangements. These include: updating the definition of 'uncontactable' to account for contemporary forms of member communication, for example online communication; supporting eligible rollover funds proactively consolidating lost accounts; and allowing direct payments of lost super held by the ATO to persons with a terminal illness. These changes will make it easier for individuals to be reunited with their lost and unclaimed superannuation.
The ATO has a range of strategies in place which aim to reunite members with lost and unclaimed superannuation accounts and reduce the number of unnecessary and inactive accounts in the superannuation system. So, once again, this is not just about shepherding these superannuation accounts to the ATO; it is also making sure the ATO has a range of strategies to reunite people with their money, because it is a priority of this government to reunite as many people with their money as possible—to get government out of their lives and to reduce the taxation and regulation burden on them.
Some of the strategies are matching superannuation accounts to an individual, providing this information on an online portal, and proactively working with super funds to ensure they have updated addresses and contact details for their lost members. The ATO in this plays a valuable role. As I have already outlined, they can save the superannuation account from being eaten by fees and charges while it has been abandoned, but they are also the organisation who can keep track of the health of Australia's superannuation system. By having the ATO as the guardian of forgotten accounts, they can assess the amounts that Australians are leaving in these accounts when they move on.
It gives the government and the tax office an indication as to which demographic are forgetting about super and as a result which group of Australians might be at risk from losing their super. Then we can sensibly just use information campaigns to ensure that that group of people understand the importance of superannuation, ensure they keep contact with their superannuation accounts and, if necessary, especially if they are changing from one job to another, ensure they keep rolling their superannuation over into the one account. This information can then be used to target them through ad campaigns, super education initiatives and so on in order to ensure that Australians are getting the most out of what they put into superannuation.
The amendments in the bill are a reflection of this government's commitment to sound economic management. That is something which will be music to the ears of many Australians who saw the disasters of the unsound economic management that took place under the stewardship of the former Labor government. These are sensible changes. There may not be any photo opportunity here for members; that is what seemed to dictate those opposite but it is not what dictates here. We just want to make sure that we are doing the best thing for Australians and their money. This is the work that we need to continue to do to keep Australia running well.
Maintaining our taxation system so that it is built on common sense and works for Australians is key to good government. Maintaining our superannuation system so that it is built on common sense and works for Australians is also key to good government. Under the stewardship of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, what we are seeing is a sound and sensible approach to making sure our taxation system and our superannuation system works for all Australians.
It is great to follow the member for waning to talk about three unrelated but important schedules in this bill.
The first one is quite an esoteric recasting of the scrip for scrip arrangements that apply to mergers and acquisitions. The second one—more relevant to many of us, I think—is the tax treatment of money earned overseas, particularly by Australian government employees who are deployed for 90 days or more. Then finally there is one that is very close to the hearts of us all: lost superannuation. Australia is second only to Chile in leading the way in superannuation reform; setting up private superannuation alternatives to state funded pensions. But this great challenge remains: unlinked superannuation accounts, particularly the smaller ones, being lost by Australians.
Briefly, without detaining the House further, the important changes in the scrip for scrip arrangements basically recognise that increasingly it was not working in the way it is was intended. This was initially to promote the process of mergers and acquisitions in this country, to make sure there were not tax impediments to doing it. But what was discovered was that these laws were being used inappropriately. This is effectively an integrity measure. It would be very difficult for anyone to disagree, particularly where tax rollover relief was being provided to entities where related parties were both the vendor and the purchaser.
These can potentially apply where a company or trust is exchanging for similar shares or interests, and the tax that is ordinary payable at the time of the exchange is basically deferred until those new shares or interests were sold. This reduces the cost of takeovers and reduces the complexity of the M&A process, as the acquiring entity does not have to compensate for the share or interest holders for those taxes that would otherwise be payable. A recent court decision, which has probably prompted these arrangements, highlighted that the integrity rules were not operating as was intended and that to strengthen these rules would be a common-sense approach. The measure also changes the treatment of some acquisitions which involve the use of debt to reduce tax payable. It is all common sense, and I do not think there would be any controversy in this House for moving ahead with those changes.
Secondly, there are not a large number of us who get to work overseas, but it is common for young professionals and certain placements are tax exempted. This bill particularly focuses on overseas development assistance and Australian government employees who could be posted overseas for more than 90 days and potentially be earning untaxed income. These ideas were originally put in place because we were trying to avoid double taxation, but that is no longer the case. It is very important to mention that these moves, which were initiated by the previous government and are being tightened in this process by the current government, will not have an impact on private aid workers, charity workers or Australian Defence Force personnel.
Fifteen years ago I found myself completing an overseas degree and acquiring a job at the World Bank. It very much surprised me that the country was effectively blind to my earnings while I was working for the World Bank, and this was under this fairly unusual concession that allows money earned under these arrangements to be tax free. While I was not on a direct placement from the Australian government, my next job was working for the transitional authority in East Timor. That was a similar arrangement. I was employed under the UN, but it was not an official Australian appointment so it still basically meant that all of that very generous payment for those months I worked overseas was not considered as taxable income in Australia. While I might have benefited temporarily from those arrangements, $6.7 million over the forward estimates would be secured with this policy change. I think this is a small but important modification to ensure a fairer tax system.
Lastly there is the great concern that not only do many of us have default accounts—and we are placed with a default superannuation account often by nothing more than the tick of a box—but, with increasingly mobile gen Y working populations moving between jobs, many have a number of accounts, and not all of them are easily able to be streamlined or merged. That means we have a significant risk of lost superannuation accounts. I do not have to tell this place that everyone is fearful that these small balances—often in accounts either you have lost track of or you cannot close—will be subjected to extraordinary fees relative to the size of the account itself. It makes a certain sort of patronising sense that those moneys should be recouped and held by the Australian Tax Office to seek some protection from those fees but, on the other side of the coin, I think we should be working harder to reunite people with their accounts and let them make their own individual decisions.
I am pleased with where this is heading. I am pleased that the current lost member super account threshold is around $2,000, below which it is transferred to the ATO. That will increase in two phases—at the end of this year to $4,000 and at the end of next year to $6,000. Obviously, when we look at how people get into super, we can see that nearly three-quarters of people are using a default account. At that time these major providers really should be working harder to make sure they keep all the required data to be able to stay in touch with their members and, more importantly, to keep it current and up-to-date. We live in a world now where electronic communication completely dominates and we should not be relying on postal communication. With mobile phones, smartphones and handsets these numbers do not change, particularly for young Australians in the workforce. That number has a very low turnover rate and is likely to remain accurate for years.
The ATO identifies that around 45 per cent of Australians are in this invidious position where they cannot bring all of their accounts together to simplify these arrangements. While the ATO does not charge any fees here, fundamentally, as a conservative government we would rather see people take responsibility for their accounts themselves than fall back on that more patronising notion that we have the ATO going around sweeping up small accounts because it is better for us.
I am glad that we have seen a multipronged approach to having better quality personal information, having a better understanding of mobile populations, working much harder to keep track of people's savings and having up-to-date contact details—something that every entity and agency should be doing. The ATO in particular has a few strategies to reunite members with lost and unclaimed superannuation. These include matching superannuation accounts to an individual and providing this information in an online portal that is easy to access and can be easily promoted, working proactively with super funds to make sure those addresses are constantly updated and, as I said, increasingly using mobile phone numbers to do that. These are three very common-sense measures. The estimated total fiscal impact of $483 million over the forward estimates is not inconsiderable and is further evidence that the coalition is keeping our tax system up to standard.
I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015. Whilst rejecting the amendment, I would like to make a couple of points. I will not take the House's time unduly. I would like to concentrate on the same thing the member for Bowman was talking about in relation to superannuation. When I was a kid the idea was that you got a job in one firm and you tried to stay there. Your mum was always telling you to go and get a job for one particular firm and you would stay in there your entire life as you moved up the ladder, because all those middle management jobs were there and you could promote yourself. That would have meant that any for savings you had you would only ever have had to have one bank account and one superannuation account.
As the eighties came along, we found that those middle management jobs kept on disappearing. It meant that, to get to where you wanted to go, you had to continually change employers. When I was doing this in the 1980s and 1990s, I was well and truly a grown-up and able to take care of my own affairs, and still I ended up with superannuation accounts all over the place. I worked a couple of part-time jobs and that sort of thing during my early married life, and I did a couple of things when I started as an auctioneer, doing a bit of weekend work and that sort of thing. I still ended up with all these little superannuation accounts all over the place, and I was in my 30s and reasonably intelligent when it came to these sorts of things. So, when a 15-year-old is coming through and paying into superannuation, there are all these sorts of things that we have to do. You end up with this hodgepodge of accounts and that sort of thing. I think the more we can do to get into that space the better off we will be. The more we can do to simplify it for the end user the better off we will be. The more we can do to simplify the amount of work that a person has to do to take care of their superannuation the better off we will be.
I would like to briefly talk to the House about taxation in general. We are in a situation at the moment where taxes are gathered so that we can pay for services. I have just had a patio put on at my house, so I have spent some extra money. I am not going to keep on spending that, but I have to pay that money back before I can get in there. When a government spends money, it is okay. I believe that there is such a thing as good debt and that it is okay to go into deficit if you are chasing a particular outcome which, in the long term, will pay dividends back to the taxpayer. If you do not have a return on that investment, if you are not able to employ more people and gather more taxes by increased turnaround, you will never get that money back, so what you then have to do is look at measures by which we can claw that money back to get into surplus. If you can get into surplus, you can start paying that money back, and if you can pay that money back then you can start doing stuff that can actually build the community.
These are measures that we have to take, rightly or wrongly and no matter which way we come from. No matter how anyone comes into this place, I think everyone comes into this place with the interests of their own community and the interests of the nation in mind. What we must do is recognise that there are some severe challenges in front of us at the moment and severe headwinds when it comes to trying to balance these books. You cannot just keep on wishing for a system 30. You cannot keep on just taking a system 8 out and hoping that you will pay off all your debts, because it does not work that way. What we have to do is start spending less than we get in, and as a nation we are not prepared to do that.
We have a taxation white paper out at the moment. 'Lower, simpler, fairer' is what we are talking about with taxes: lower taxes, simpler methodology and fairer to everyone concerned. I asked a couple of my friends at home whether they thought that was the right title for a taxation white paper. We were standing around having a beer, and they said, 'It doesn't really matter, because people want to pay no tax, they want more services and they never want to pay it back, and they want someone else to pay.' So that is where the electorate seems to be at the moment, until we as a parliament can turn it around and say, 'Look, we've got to get this thing back into order, because the end result if we don't is disorder and chaos.'
So what we must do is make sure that we get these measures through. These measures here are only $400-odd million worth of repairing the budget, but, when you say 'only $400 million', it is a massive amount of money. None of us here would have to work again if we had that sort of money. But what we must do is start the work together, and we must start the work by building those little bricks and putting those little things in there that we can do. These are sensible measures. These are simplifying our tax measures. These are making it easier for everyone to get around, and at the end of the day those sorts of things must be supported. I back this bill and the Assistant Treasurer, who brought it forward, and I thank the House.
I rise as well to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015, and I endorse the words of the member for Herbert, who said this is all part of the tax white paper process and all part of streamlining government business to ensure that we enable the people of Australia—the taxpayers and superannuation earners of Australia—to have the best possible way to be able to get ahead in society.
Schedule 1 to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015 amends the scrip-for-scrip rollover rules to ensure that they are better targeted and work as they were meant to work, and that is so important. This measure is an integrity measure which guarantees that opportunities for entities to indefinitely defer tax are taken away. Scrip-for-scrip rollover rules provide tax relief for certain merger and acquisition transactions. They apply where shares or interests in a company or trust are exchanged for similar shares or interests. The tax ordinarily payable at the time of the exchange is held over; it is deferred until the new shares or interests are sold. This decreases the cost of takeovers and mergers, as the acquiring entity does not need to compensate the share or interest holders for tax which would otherwise be payable.
The rollover ensures that tax is not getting in the way of mergers and acquisitions occurring in Australia, and we need to be able to do that. This government is all about making it easier and more streamlined for business activity to occur, and we just heard that from the member for Herbert—getting out of the way and removing the impediments so that we can allow business to get on with the job that they do for themselves, to increase their wealth and prosperity, to make it easier for them to employ people and to get the economy ticking again. We have had one Minister for Small Business since our election on 7 September 2013. Labor had six ministers for this important portfolio in six years. I appreciate this is not the small business minister's legislation; it is the Assistant Treasurer's. But it relates very much to the core priorities of this government: to help business, to build wealth and to encourage prosperity.
Integrity rules in the scrip-for-scrip rollover stop entities from accessing the tax relief in some circumstances — generally where both the acquiring entity and the entity being acquired are run by the same group or individual. A recent court decision, Commissioner of Taxation v AXA Asia Pacific Holdings Ltd [2010] FCAFC 134—the AXA case—highlighted that there were unintended consequences as to how the laws were unfolding in the business world—hence this amendment. The integrity rules were not functioning as intended and were being bypassed. This circumvention was done by temporarily suppressing the ownership rights of related parties through a new issue of instruments. This measure bolsters these rules to ensure entities cannot inappropriately access tax relief via this structure. The tighter integrity rules will be applicable both to trusts and to companies. Further, the measure also changes the handling of some 'downstream' acquisitions which involve the use of debt to reduce tax payable.
These amendments are necessary to guarantee that the rollover cannot be accessed inappropriately, to overcome issues with the use of debt in certain transactions and to ensure that the rules apply to both company and trust restructures. These amendments are deliberately focused and they will have an impact only on those merger and acquisition transactions which inappropriately access rollover relief.
Consequently, it is not anticipated that they will make restructures more burdensome in Australia. We do not want to do that. This measure is not expected to affect small business, and that is vital. As with all government policy, it comes after careful consideration and due consultation. There is an unspecifiable but potentially large revenue protection linked with these amendments, and that is good.
Schedule 2 is about the exemption of income earned in overseas employment. This measure removes an income tax exemption presently being accessed by Australian government employees who are posted overseas for more than 90 days to deliver official development assistance. The intent of this income tax exemption is to provide relief from double taxation, but it no longer has this effect. Instead, it now serves to give a tax break for many Australians who are not liable to pay income tax on their foreign earnings in Australia or in the overseas country.
In the 2009-10 budget the former Labor government had tightened the eligibility for this particular exemption. This income tax measure will go one step further by ensuring that all government employees who deliver official development assistance overseas are subject to Australian income tax on their pay and on their allowances. This change will take effect from 1 July next year. This change does not apply to the taxation arrangements for private sector aid workers or charity workers, who do such a valuable job; we recognise that. It does not apply to Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel, who, we also recognise, do a fantastic job, as do Public Service employees. The existing eligibility for an income tax exemption on income earned while working overseas will continue for the groups I just mentioned—the ADF, the AFP. This amendment was announced in the 2014-15 budget and it will result in a gain to revenue over the forward estimates of $6.7 million.
The schedule 3 small lost member account threshold measure raises the current lost superannuation account balance threshold below which small lost superannuation accounts must be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office. This measure was initially announced by Labor in the 2013-14 budget; however, as with so many other things, so much other legislation, whether through incompetence or procrastination Labor did not legislate the measure. On 6 November 2013 the then recently elected coalition government announced it would enact the measure as part of a broader announcement about previously announced but unlegislated tax and superannuation measures.
Mr Husic interjecting—
We hear the member for Chifley interjecting, but he knows that there was so much unenacted legislation that Labor talked about and did media releases about but never did anything else about—never brought it into the House, never brought it into the Senate, never brought it on for debate. That was because they knew it was bad policy or they merely procrastinated. That happened so often from 2007 to 2013.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
At present—the member for Fraser can be quiet too; he needs to listen up; he might learn something—lost member super accounts containing less than $2,000 must be transferred from superannuation funds to the ATO as unclaimed superannuation money. This measure will increase the $2,000 threshold in two phases—firstly, to $4,000 from New Year's Eve this year, and then to $6,000 from 31 December next year. This is good policy. It is sensible. It is overdue legislation. Lost super is a super account held by a super fund where the fund has lost contact with the member, or the account has been idle for more than five years.
When we look at how people get into super, we know that around 70 per cent of employees are members of the default fund which is offered by their particular employer. When many people change jobs, and we hear that people these days will change their jobs up to seven times in their career lifetime—some of the Labor members after the next election might need to start looking around for a new job, because they will certainly need a new job after the next election—
Opposition members interjecting—
I can hear the cacophony of noise. I have obviously struck a nerve there, as they realise their short term in this place. But, when people change jobs, they often end up with a new super account and they fail to consolidate existing accounts. As a result, many people end up with more superannuation accounts than they want or they need. The ATO says nearly half of all working Australians—45 per cent in fact—have more than one super account. In many cases, members are not even aware that they have lost super accounts. They do not know. They are not aware of it. Superannuation is one of those things where a lot of people, whilst it is very important to them and very important to their future, are not aware of how much they hold, let alone of how many accounts that they might have. For super accounts with smaller balances, the costs of fees and charges and insurance premiums can pass the actual investment returns. This can be especially problematic for lost super accounts, because, in the majority of cases, the members are not even aware, as I stated before, that they actually even have these accounts and can end up losing money which was meant for their retirement. Transferring lost super accounts with low balances to the ATO helps to protect such accounts and preserves their value until they can be reunited with their rightful owner, the particular member. The ATO does not charge any fees for maintaining these accounts. Individuals are able to recoup their super money from the ATO at any time. Members are paid interest calculated in accordance with the consumer price index when their money—and it is their money—is reclaimed.
In the 2015-16 budget the government announced six measures to reduce red tape for superannuation funds by removing redundant reporting obligations and streamlining some of the lost and unclaimed superannuation administrative arrangements. These include updating the definition of 'uncontactable' to account for contemporary forms of member communication (for example over the internet, online); supporting eligible rollover funds proactively consolidating lost accounts; and allowing direct payments of lost super held by the ATO to persons with a terminal illness. These changes will make it easier for individuals to be reunited with their lost and unclaimed superannuation moneys. This is reasoned, measured and compassionate.
Opposition members interjecting—
This government is about being reasoned, measured and compassionate, member for Jagajaga. The ATO has strategies in place to reunite members with lost and unclaimed superannuation accounts and to reduce the number of unnecessary and inactive accounts in the superannuation system. Some of the strategies are matching superannuation accounts to an individual, providing this information on an online portal, and proactively working with super funds to ensure they have updated contact details for lost members. There is an estimated total fiscal impact of $483.9 million over the forward estimates. I commend the original motion to the House.
Firstly I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 4) Bill 2015 is part of the government's plan to modernise and update Australia's tax and superannuation laws. The bill makes three changes: two to our tax law and one to our superannuation law. The two tax changes are part of the government's concerted effort to make our tax system fairer and more robust. We want to make sure that everybody pays their fair share of tax and that there are no loopholes in our tax system that allow an unfair advantage to some over others. These two tax changes are integrity measures that will remove the ability of certain companies, trusts and individuals to obtain an unfair tax advantage that was never intended for them. This will make our tax system harder to circumvent and more sustainable for the future. The superannuation amendment in this bill is about making sure that people's superannuation money is protected from erosion by fees and charges, including insurance premiums, so that it is available to them when they retire. These three amendments demonstrate the government's commitment to tax and superannuation systems that are fairer, more sustainable and more robust.
Schedule 1 to this bill will improve the integrity of the rules that deal with scrip for scrip rollovers. The rules apply where shares or interests in a company or a trust are exchanged for similar shares or interests as part of a merger or takeover. The tax payable on the disposal of the original interest when it was exchanged is deferred. Special integrity rules exist to ensure that tax relief is not provided where an entity has a controlling interest in both the entity acquiring and the entity being acquired. This schedule strengthens those rules to ensure that they operate as intended. These new rules overcome a decision in the full Federal Court of Australia which highlighted that there were problems with the rules that allowed entities to access the rollover in circumstances which were outside the policy intent. Schedule 1 to this bill will amend the special integrity rules to ensure that these rules cannot be bypassed, by changing certain definitions and introducing new integrity rules which target the inappropriate deferral of tax. It also ensures that equivalent rules apply to trusts.
The second amendment in this bill, schedule 2, will eliminate an income tax exemption for certain government employees who work overseas. This income tax exemption is available to certain groups of Australian residents, including government employees who deliver official development assistance for more than 90 days. The exemption was originally designed to make sure that Australians were not subject to double taxation on their foreign employment income; however, it no longer serves this purpose. Instead it now acts as a tax break for some government employees, who are able to avoid income tax altogether. This income tax exemption was never intended to provide full relief from income taxation, so it is currently providing an unintended benefit to eligible Australians. This bill will ensure that government employees who earn income while delivering official development assistance will be liable to pay income tax in Australia. This amendment will not affect defence or police force personnel or employees of private sector or charity organisations delivering official development assistance. This tax change will commence from 1 July 2016 and result in a gain to revenue of $6.7 million over the forward estimates.
The third and final amendment in this bill will help ensure that lost member superannuation accounts with small balances are not eroded by fees, charges and insurance premiums, which can often exceed investment returns on such accounts. Generally lost super is a super account where either the fund has lost contact with the member or the account has been idle for more than five years. Transferring these lost super accounts with low balances to the ATO helps protect them from fees and charges, including insurance premiums, and preserves their value until they can be reunited with the member. The ATO does not charge any fees for maintaining these accounts, pays interest calculated in accordance with the consumer price index and ensures that the electronic process to reunite members with their lost super accounts is quick and easy. Currently, lost member super accounts with less than $2,000 must be transferred from funds to the ATO as unclaimed superannuation money. This bill will increase the $2,000 threshold in two phases—first to $4,000 from 31 December 2015 and then to $6,000 from 31 December 2016. The threshold increase recognises the significance of protecting superannuation savings for the purpose of retirement income.
This measure, as well as the two tax measures contained in this bill, will modernise our tax and superannuation law and make the overall system fairer and more sustainable for all Australians. It is not fair for some companies or individuals to obtain a tax benefit that was never intended to be there in the first place. And it is not fair that money put away into superannuation for a person's retirement is not protected and available to them when they finally reach retirement. That is why this bill will remove unintended tax benefits that have arisen and protect the superannuation accounts of those with low balances. These important changes will result in a fairer and more sustainable system. I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original 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.
On the back wall of St Margaret's Anglican Church, in Eltham, is an honour roll of those men and women from Eltham who served in World War I. There are 74 names inscribed on that honour roll and a red cross before each of the 13 names of the people who lost their lives in the conflict.
On 1 August this year I attended a service at St Margaret's commemorating the centenary of the August Offensive at Gallipoli, which included the Battle of Lone Pine, The Nek and Hill 60.
The ceremony provided an opportunity for the Eltham community to remember the soldiers from Eltham who served in the Gallipoli campaign. One of the names on that honour roll is Geoffrey Treacher Grant. He left Australia on 7 May, 1915, but the 19-year-old died three months later at Gallipoli at the Battle of the Nek on 7 August 1915.
I want to acknowledge Montmorency-Eltham RSL for putting together the moving service and, in particular, RSL President Bill McKenna; organiser Kathleen Toal; Reverend Clem Taplin; Parish historian Geoffrey Sandy; President of the Eltham District Historical Society Jim Connor; Turkish representative Oscar Yildiz; Sean Donehue, who sang both the Australian and New Zealand national anthems; and students from Eltham Primary School, who read out the names of those descendants who served. It was a very special day.
The 2015 St George Beachside Dash took place yesterday in Barton, encouraging participants to run, jog or walk for the St George and Sutherland Medical Research Foundation. It was a perfect day to be out and about, especially along the water's edge at Brighton-Le-Sands. I am pleased to inform the House that over 605 people participated, a 10 per cent increase from 2014.
This fantastic local event really brings out the best in Barton constituents where community groups, families and volunteers all come together to support medical research in the St George region. The Beachside Dash included approximately 1,500 volunteers, including 20 from the local Rotary Club alone.
Volunteers came from the local State Emergency Services and about 100 direct volunteers came from St George Bank. This did not take into account the many family members who came with the volunteers, who stayed and cheered on the participants. There were also 15 stalls dotted along the beach, dedicated to the promotion and awareness of the importance of healthy lifestyles.
It was an absolute pleasure to be able to welcome all the participants, meet the volunteers, their families and organisers of the Beachside Dash. Needless to say, the event was a huge success, raising approximately $40,000 for the St George and Sutherland Medical Research Foundation. Well done to all the participants and volunteers for making it a fun-filled day. I am certainly looking forward to the next one.
Earlier today I attended the launch of the Alcohol Advertising Review Board's annual report for 2014-15, along with my colleagues from the Parliamentary Friends of Drug Law Reform, Senator Richard Di Natale and Dr Stone, the member for Murray.
The AARB highlights a serious gap in Australia's current approach to regulating the promotion of alcohol. Given the very considerable direct and indirect harm caused by alcohol, it simply does not make sense that we take a hands-off and a light-touch approach through self-regulation, when the industry continues to promote dangerous drinking and often promotes such conduct to young people.
I want to thank Mike Daube, Julia Stafford, and Hannah Pierce from the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth; Cancer Council WA; the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; and the Public Health Association for their work in this space.
Reducing alcohol-related harm, including the role of alcohol in domestic violence needs to be a much more urgent and better-resourced public health priority. We have done great work in the area of tobacco control, but alcohol-related harm continues to be a cultural and regulatory blind spot despite the fact that, as shown in the report, the community overwhelmingly supports better, stronger and more effective regulation.
At a time when many Australians are enjoying the football finals in various codes, we should all pay close attention to the wall-to-wall repetition of advertising designed to associate alcohol consumption with healthy activity, fun, young people and success.
The reality is that dangerous alcohol consumption is filling the emergency departments of our hospitals with the victims of road accidents and violence. It is time we acted to prevent this.
I rise today to congratulate the Brisbane City Council, Deputy Mayor Councillor Adrian Schrinner but, most of all, the wonderful volunteers and community groups that made the 2015 Green Heart Fair the best fair yet.
The Green Heart Fair is Brisbane's greatest free, biannual community and sustainability festival, promoting innovative green living in a fun, family-friendly environment for all residents to come and enjoy.
This year's event saw the merging of two of Brisbane's most loved festivals with the Green Heart Fair and Billycart Championship.
Some of the attractions included a cooking demonstration from My Kitchen Rules contestants Rob and Dave, hundreds of businesses and community groups displaying their products and projects, as well as the famous Billycart Championship. A special thanks must go to Carindale Rotary for helping create an incredible legacy that is now in its 11th year.
I was thrilled to be able to pip state member for Chatsworth, Steven Minnikin MP, at the post to claim my second consecutive pollies' title. The real thrill, however, came from seeing my son Zachary enjoy the practical and entertaining lessons on clean living and sustainability. Thank you, again, to all those involved.
Right now the Baird government is in the process of selling an absolute hothouse of innovation in Sydney: the Australian Technology Park. The site houses 100 resident technology firms, cranking out 5½ thousand research positions, but, if it were not for the actions of some, we would be completely unaware of the Baird government's desire to turn ATP into a bland, papier-mache facsimile of the development that is already well represented in Sydney.
Fortunately, two people who know a thing or two about innovation are fighting to keep the spirit of ATP alive. Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes are co-founders of the home-grown software giant Atlassian. They have sketched out a vision for the site—a vision that could generate $400 million of value for the New South Wales economy over the next 10 years. They have spoken with five of the shortlisted ATP redevelopers to get their buy-in for a strong innovation precinct and they are confident that this might happen. To keep the heat on the issue, they have agitated for Sydney's tech community to get behind the push to save it. Good on them for this incredibly important effort and good on the Financial Review and BRWfor spotlighting this and keeping us aware of what was at stake if this fire sale went ahead.
The test is now on the Baird government, with planning minister Rob Stokes finally agreeing that the government would consider bids on the basis of what they do to maintain an on-site innovation precinct. Hopefully, this will not conflict with the terms of the tender process, because we need to hold onto ATP. Let's see what happens next. Please sign the change.org petition kicked off by Sydney Startups's Matthew Ho to make sure we keep ATP.
Nothing unites or divides us more than—what's it called?—football. North-west football is fantastic. ON Saturday the Wynyard Cats conquered the Ulverstone Robins in the North West Football League grand final, making it back-to-back wins for the Cats for the fist time in their club history. Not all was lost for Ulverstone; they took out the reserve grand final and also the underage competition. The Robins were on track to win the game, but they just did not have what it took. The Cats were too strong in the end, coming back to win 138-76. All players should hold their heads high not only for leaving everything they had on the ground but for playing the game in the true spirit of the game.
I want to make special mention of some of the Wynyard heroes. Zane Murphy won the Wilf Barker Medal for best on-ground. That award comes off the back of a stellar season for which he also won Most Valuable Player and Player of the Year. North West Football icon Errol Bourn deserves particular recognition as coach of the Wynyard Football Club, leading them to consecutive premierships. I should not forget the efforts of the 37-year-old Greg Sharman, who this year became only the second player in the league's history to kick over 100 goals in consecutive premiership teams.
Finally, congratulations to the La Trobe Football Club, who hosted the grand final and did—as they always do—a fantastic job as host. The oval was in top condition.
Again I want to congratulate all players and coaching staff and particularly all volunteers. We love our football, and your contribution is important to the fabric of our community.
When launching his 2013 election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition told Australians that Australia's worst deficit was not the budget deficit but the trust deficit. Just as this government has doubled the budget deficit after promising to cut it, the Prime Minister's litany of broken promises and tricky excuses has left levels of trust in Australia at all-time lows. Broken promises on health, education funding, the pension, higher education fees, the NBN, taxes, the ABC, SBS and soon the GST have left the Prime Minister's leadership teetering.
Now it seems that the next contender for the job—the member for Wentworth—is keen to follow the same approach. Not only has he endorsed every one of these broken promises; but he is working on some broken promises of his own. Today's Australian informs its readers:
MPs expect Mr Turnbull to make it clear he would not reopen old divisions over climate change by arguing for an emissions trading scheme to cut greenhouse gases.
This is a plan that is so cunning Godwin Grech would approve—#seriously! In October 2009 Malcolm Turnbull told the ABC:
I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.
In December 2009 Malcolm Turnbull further said:
Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions.
… … …
Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.
The member for Wentworth is right about the previous leader and he is right about the next one.
Every day, I am really focused on the importance of delivering more local jobs for the people of my electorate, which is why I rise to commend an important program that will help young people looking for work on the Central Coast. The coalition's new Transition to Work service has been announced and is designed to provided an intensive level of support to those at most risk of long-term unemployment. This includes young people aged 15 to 21 who have left school early and who are not in work or education. It is targeted at helping them address language and literacy challenges; personal, social or behavioural issues; applying for jobs; and to give them support to settle into a job and keep it. It opens the doors to the government's new National Work Experience program, encouraging take-up of apprenticeships and traineeships as a great pathway into employment.
I am advised that the services will be rolled out over the first few months of next year, but right now we are looking for local providers with local connections to look at our exposure draft over the next four weeks and to provide their feedback.
We know that youth unemployment is an issue in my electorate. The latest Department of Employment figures show an above-average youth unemployment rate of around 15 per cent for people aged 15 to 24 across the Central Coast region, but I know that programs like this work. I went to the Skills Generator just a few weeks ago and saw the positive impact of young people working on a short bricklaying course where they got to build a pizza oven. They saw the benefits of what they were doing, and to hear them talk about the opportunities that they can now see in bricklaying was inspiring.
It is my pleasure to welcome to Parliament House today the students from year 6 of The King's School. There they are up in the gallery; wave, Deputy Speaker Scott! And what a fine school it is—a school of great tradition that meets the most contemporary needs for boys, particularly in leadership. They have an extraordinary reputation for their leadership work.
It has an extraordinary history. It was founded in 1831 on the command of King William IV, opened in February 1832 in a cottage in George Street with just three students, grew to 100 in that first year and within a few years moved to a new location on the banks of the Parramatta River, where it stayed for some 100 years before moving to its extraordinary grounds now in North Parramatta.
The circle is closing in many ways, because the space we now know as the old King's School—beautiful heritage buildings on the banks of the Parramatta River—is about to be a school again. So that contribution that William Grant Broughton made when he founded school in 1832 continues to flow through to today, not only in the skill and capability of the students that graduate from this fine school but also in the provision to Parramatta of some of our wonderful heritage assets which are about to come to life again. I hope the year 6 students of the King's School enjoy their visit. It is a pleasure to have you. Thanks for coming.
Football finals have gripped certainly Adelaide, my home city, as well as our country. It is great to celebrate some successes enjoyed by our local footy clubs in my electorate over the weekend as well as the big win by the Adelaide Crows in the AFL finals. I know my colleagues behind me from WA are castigated by the Crows coming to challenge the Dockers and the West Coast Eagles.
PHOS Camden are no doubt continuing to celebrate today after winning all three division 3 titles in the South Australian Amateur Football League. Never before in the club's history have all three division 3 premierships been won, and it certainly was a great weekend for the Phantoms. As a club supporter, it was great to get along and cheer on the Phantoms. The A grade side had a slow start but were on top by half-time and ended up winning by 28 points over Old Ignatians. The Bs' grand final was much tighter, with PHOS getting over the line by a point, and the Cs held on for nine-point win. Congratulations to Aaron Bergsman, who capped off a great season by also winning the division 3 association's best and fairest medal. Congratulations to President Paul Williams and the PHOS Camden Phantoms on a terrific season.
I would also like to congratulate the Morphettville Park Roos women's team on going back to back and winning the 2015 SA Women's Football League title, beating West Adelaide by 29 points. Unfortunately, there were a couple of other teams who were unlucky over the weekend. Lockleys Football Club went down and also Henley Sharks went down, but they all participated extremely well in their finals and had a very good season and they will be back in 2016.
A couple of weeks ago the Lu Alessi, the Principal of Mill Park Primary School, just around the corner from my electorate office, invited me to spend an afternoon with the year 6 students from her school. It was a very memorable afternoon. She invited me because year 6 are about to head to Canberra to spend some time at a range of national institutions, including this parliament. I was really struck by the engagement of all of the year 6 students and their concern about politics and my role on their behalf and on behalf of their parents and about the community they live in. Also, perhaps most importantly, I was struck by their care for each other over the course of the conversation. These were respectful, considered and articulate students. They asked me some hard questions and showed a real interest in the work I and all of us do in this place. It was simply an inspiring place to be on a Friday afternoon and filled me with confidence for their future. That confidence is of course reinforced just a little bit by recent announcements by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in Victoria of significant support for state schools like Mill Park Primary. That gives these year 6 students and those that will follow them confidence that they will get every educational opportunity they deserve—or they would if the unity ticket on Gonski on needs-based school funding had arrived. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the students and staff who participated in our conversation and to wish them all the best for their visit to Canberra. I look forward to carrying on our conversation.
On Friday, 11 September I attended the launch of the 2015 Hidden Treasures of the Great Southern Bloom Festival. Held over four weeks across eight shires, the festival showcases the very best of the Great Southern. This year there are more than 37 events or activities to introduce visitors to the wonders of the Great Southern. They include the magnificent wildflowers; natural attractions such as the Stirling Range, Fitzgerald and Porongurup national parks; award-winning wines and locally grown foods; open gardens in full bloom; train rides; and whale-watching along the coast. One of the highlights of the launch, apart from spending some quality time with my mum, was a presentation by Bremer Bay ecologist Nathan McQuoid. Nathan gave a very informative talk about the unique native flora in the region.
I also spent some time with festival coordinator Emily Hardie, who certainly has a big job ahead of her. She showed me through the 2016 Bloom Festival calendar, a collection of wildflower photos taken by local photographers and gathered through a competition on ABC Great Southern. For $15 people not only get a beautiful calendar but help to support increasing tourism to an amazing part of the world. As a part of the launch, the committee potted and grew three different types of melaleuca plants as gifts for the attendees, a really nice touch. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to their launch and I wish them the best of luck for the next four weeks. The festival runs until 12 October, and I encourage everybody to visit the website, Hiddentreasures.com.au, and attend an event near you.
I rise today to share with the House an event that occurred in my electorate. It was the second part of the student representative council forum that I run in the electorate of Lalor. I would like to thank the St James the Apostle School Principal, Mary Abbott, for hosting the second event this year. We had over 130 attendees at this second event. I would like to thank the secondary schools that attended: Al-Taqwa College, Alamanda College K-9, Hoppers Crossing Secondary College, the Islamic College, MacKillop Catholic Regional College, Manor Lakes College prep-12, Tarneit Senior College, the Grange College, Thomas Carr College, Werribee Secondary College and Wyndham Central College. I commend their students for their participation. At the end of the session we talked about what they wanted to see in their country, and those secondary students talked mostly about equality and fairness. Marriage equality was a hot-button issue with them, as was climate change. I also commend all of the primary school students that attended in the morning sessions, who had such a wonderful time and who demonstrate great leadership in their schools, have learned a lot about leadership across the year and are running great projects in their schools.
I am very proud to say that the Liberal government has committed $10 million to a project called Bunjil Place in Narre Warren. I would like to congratulate the Casey council and local residents, as it is something I am very proud to be involved with. This project is expected to see two million people through its doors annually, and it will be a unique cultural, community and civic facility that will be the centrepiece for Melbourne's south-east suburbs. This is one of the largest projects to be undertaken by a local government in Australia, and it will offer visitors an unprecedented, diverse mix of arts, leisure, entertainment, library and civic facilities.
The precinct will feature a theatre which houses 800 seats and will be the biggest outside of the Melbourne CBD and a studio to host touring exhibitions, functions, trade shows and performances. There will be a gallery to showcase local but also national and international art exhibitions, something we are very excited about. It will have community library meeting rooms, which will include state-of-the-art learning facilities. Finally, there will be a community plaza specifically designed for families and community events. While the project is under construction there will be 1,200 jobs. It will inject $83.5 million into the regional economy, and each year will see it turn over $2.5 million to the local community. This is something I am very proud to be involved with, and I congratulate the council and local residents.
Some 50,000 new strokes occur every year in Australia. This week is National Stroke Week, with the National Stroke Foundation encouraging all Australians to be more aware of stroke, to live healthily to reduce the risk of stroke, and to get a regular health check. While stroke prevention and quick action is vital to reducing the incidence of, impact of and deaths from stroke, more needs to be done for those who survive. There are more than 440,000 stroke survivors in Australia. Sixty-five per cent of survivors need assistance to carry out daily living activities, yet a staggering 80 per cent of those survivors have unmet needs. Despite advances in stroke treatment, we are still well short of best practice in Australia, with significant variability and extensive gaps across the system. Patients continue to be turned away from life-saving stroke units in hospital, and far too few receive clot-busting therapy in time to reverse stroke effects.
My electorate of Newcastle is lucky enough to host world-leading researchers in the field of stroke, led by Conjoint Professor Chris Levi of the University of Newcastle, and is home to an international testing ground for new stroke treatment. But family members and carers of people who have suffered a stroke in Newcastle tell me that there are significant gaps in transitional care, intensive rehabilitation services and adequate support and services to remain living at home post stroke. In this National Stroke Week, I call on all stakeholders, including the federal government, to redouble our efforts in prevention, research and treatment and recommit ourselves— (Time expired)
I rise to talk about the Guildford Association Anzac Centennial home poppy plaque presentation, held in the Guildford Town Hall on Saturday, 29 August. There was a great turnout, and it was a great event. Guildford is a significant historical site, as it was Western Australia's port in the early years of the new colony. More importantly, during World War I it played a key role in supporting soldiers from the different battalions and, in particular, the 10th Light Horse.
Mrs Barbara Dundas, who has been spearheading this project, has commented on the strong sense of community ownership of the poppy plaque project, which has an increasing number of residents wanting to be involved. On the night, residents were given a beautiful poppy plaque with the name of the Anzac who had resided in their property, and a moving history of each veteran was read out for a very large audience. There has been overwhelming community support for the project, with well over 90 plaques being presented.
The poppy plaques are the first stage of the project. The second stage of the project is a detailed website with the military history of each soldier, compiled over the last two years, and a walking trail linking the history, the servicemen and the homes together. The community have come together to acknowledge and celebrate all those Anzacs who lived, trained and resided in the area and who spent time living in those homes, being billeted, before they took their ships overseas to Gallipoli. It is a great initiative, and I compliment Barbara Dundas and the Guildford Association.
I am not going to be rubbing the noses of my eastern states colleagues in the victories of the Dockers and West Coast on Saturday. No, I will leave that for another fortnight. I just want to update the House on the next exciting instalment of the Barnett and Abbott governments' war against information: their valiant battles to ensure that the people of Western Australia do not have to see any documentation concerning the Perth Freight Link.
We have been having these battles for 18 months with the Commonwealth, so we thought we would try another approach: we would go to Main Roads WA and see if we could get documents from them. We got very excited when we got a phone call on Friday: 'You can come and pick the documents up.' We raced off, and I have to say that our joy was short lived, colleagues, because—
Opposition members: Oh!
it was!—they used a whole cartridge of cyan on producing these documents. Apparently we cannot have any information about the inner harbour; we are not allowed to have any information on traffic volumes; and we are not allowed to have any information on road upgrade options. Apparently, all of these have to be kept secret to protect the process of deliberation, even though a decision was made on this lemon over 18 months ago. The taxpayers of WA— (Time expired)
I am very pleased today to speak about the Dowerin field days. The Dowerin field days are one of the biggest agricultural events in regional Australia. Thousands of people travel from interstate and from as far as the Kimberley and as far south as the southern Goldfields for the event, which lights up the wheat belt. More than 22,000 people attended this year's event, the event's 51st birthday. The increase in attendance can be attributed to the widespread rainfall throughout the wheat belt and the midwest, with a bumper harvest predicted.
I spoke with hundreds of constituents over the two days. Many of them thanked me for round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which delivered 45 new and many more upgraded mobile base stations in my electorate of Durack.
Exhibitors reported an increase in sales in recent years and a more positive reception, with farmers able to spend more for the first time in years. This year's event featured a world war display, including a M3 Stuart tank and a very rare World War II searchlight.
Well done to Aglime of Australia, who were awarded as Most Outstanding Exhibitor for their brilliant sandcastle display. Well done once again to the organisers of the Dowerin field days, another outstanding regional agricultural event in my electorate of Durack.
It is time for a national crisis summit on family violence, not a talkfest but an assembly of the front line—community and legal services, law enforcement and experts, people working in prevention—and, most importantly, a platform for the voices of survivors and their families. They are the people who understand the postcode lottery of unequal treatment, people who know the cracks in our system because they have fallen through them and, in some cases, survived and climbed back out. The summit would involve state leaders, but it must go further than COAG.
Too often, the first public warning sign that a woman is in danger is a report of her death. Whilst women are being killed weekly, there are tens of thousands further living with violence in their homes. The dreadful reports from Queensland and Victoria last week force us to confront this reality once again.
But last week also showed that our nation is capable of rising to meet great and urgent challenges. This parliament, community groups, welfare organisations and state governments—Australians one and all—came together to offer to help 12,000 desperate people on the other side of the world. Let us bring the same urgency, the same purpose and the same compassion to the total elimination of family violence from our national life. We cannot practise politics as usual. Never before have we assembled everyone. Family violence requires national leadership.
I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time today for personal reasons, but the Treasurer will answers questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the past week, Australians have looked on in horror as three women have been killed at the hands of someone they allegedly knew, highlighting the need for urgent and meaningful action on family violence. Will the Prime Minister declare that family violence is a national crisis? And will the Prime Minister join with me and commit to a family violence package, including front-line legal services to be funded to ensure women suffering from family violence get the right legal support and programs to keep women safe at home and to help identify opportunities to prevent violence by mapping perpetrator activities?
I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I respect the passion and the commitment that he brings to this cause. Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace that we still have these horrific incidents of family violence. The point I make is that violence is violence, and we do not in any way explain it or minimise it by saying that it is domestic violence. In fact, if anything, there is more horror to violence when it takes place inside the home than when it takes place in other contexts, because the home should be a refuge and a haven, not a place of persecution and violence. I make the fundamental point, in response to the Leader of the Opposition: anyone who strikes a woman is not a real man. Anyone who strikes a woman or a child is a coward. All of us have a very heavy duty to say to our brothers, to our fathers, to our sons and to our mates that domestic violence is never, ever acceptable and never, ever justifiable.
I certainly do not rule out another summit—I do not rule that out at all. I know that this suggestion is made in very good faith by the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, much is already happening. There was a COAG summit on domestic violence earlier this year. As members of this House would know, there is a panel headed by Rosie Batty and Ken Lay, the former Victorian police commissioner, advising COAG on this matter. There is a $30 million national campaign about to get underway, which the government announced on 4 May. On 17 May, we committed an additional $4 million towards the 1800RESPECT helpline. There is also $100 million over four years to support the implementation of the second action plan.
What I think we need is concerted action. Maybe a summit might help, but what we really want is action. I will have more to say about this in the next few days. Essentially, we need to ensure that men with a predisposition to violence against members of their families are better monitored and better tracked so that, the instant there is any suggestion of harm, the police can act—because the last thing we want to see is repeated atrocities like those we saw in this country last week.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement will help create jobs in my electorate, in Canning and in my home state of Western Australia?
I do thank the member for Forrest for her question, and I do appreciate her absolute focus on jobs. When the government went to the people in the last election campaign, we said that we had a strong plan to back hardworking Australians. We had a plan to create a strong and prosperous economy so that we could have a safe and secure Australia. I can advise the member for Forrest that the plan is working, so we are sticking to the plan. Last month, 17,000 jobs were created in our economy. The month before that, 40,000 jobs were created in our economy. Over this year, 167,000 jobs have been created. Since the election, more than 300,000 jobs have been created. Jobs growth now is 10 times the rate of jobs growth in the last year of the former Labor government. This is due to the fact that, in our economy, we have strong and creative businesses, we have committed and dynamic workers and we have a sensible government which is putting the right policies in place: lower taxes, more roads and freer trade. Freer trade is at the heart of our plan for more jobs in the months and years ahead.
The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is the next step in our plan for a stronger economy. I note that the CEO of Burch Family Wines in the electorate of Forrest said the other day, 'The big prize for us is China. When I am in China talking to government people and businesspeople, they are seeing the opportunities and moving in a direction to capitalise on the opportunities, and I think that's very exciting.' But it is not just winemakers in Forrest; it is all winemakers, including Drakesbrook Wines and the Ritual winemakers in Canning. All winemakers will see tariffs of up to 20 per cent entirely eliminated. All beef exporters, including Margaret River Premium Meat Exports, in Forrest will see the tariffs on beef entirely eliminated. Once the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is in place, 95 per cent of our exports to China will be entirely duty free. That is why this is the ultimate export deal. We all talk in this place of the Asian century. This free trade agreement puts us at the heart of the Asian century; that is why this parliament must finalise this deal as soon as possible.
Andrew should get you into an ad!
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said earlier today, 'I am worried about being the best possible Prime Minister.' Can the Prime Minister nominate a single person sitting behind him who thinks he is the best possible Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am one, but that question is clearly out of order. It is not about the Prime Minister's responsibilities, it is simply an argument dressed up as a question and should be ruled out of order.
Yes, I agree. I am ruling the question out of order. I have had time to study the Hansard, in this regard. I am calling the member for Swan.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's investment in key infrastructure will help create jobs and allow businesses to fully exploit the advantages of the export agreement with China, particularly in my home state of Western Australia?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He is aware that this government has made major commitments to infrastructure around Australia, including more than $5.4 billion for infrastructure projects in Western Australia. There are some really big projects on the list, projects like $925 million to the Perth Freight Link, $894 million to NorthLink WA and $676 million to the Gateway project in Perth, which was opened by the Prime Minister over the weekend. So we are making substantial investments in Western Australia, and we added another $116 million for the duplication of the Armadale Road—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting!
with the announcement by the Prime Minister over the weekend. These are key projects that will make a difference to Western Australian exporters in accessing the port and accessing the airport. I am sure the honourable member will be aware that the vast majority of Western Australia's exports of manufactured goods and valued-added food projects pass through the port of Fremantle. And most of the consumer goods coming into Western Australia come through the port of Fremantle. So it is a very important piece of infrastructure.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned.
China accounts for 40 per cent of Australia's exports but for Western Australia the figure is 51 per cent. Over half of all the exports from Western Australia go to China. It is quite staggering to know that exports to China from Western Australia have increased from $5 billion to $64 billion in the last decade. That is obviously so critical, therefore, to the export industries of Western Australia.
When it comes to Western Australian imports, the second most important country for imports is from China. So you would think, of all states, there would be unanimous support for the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. You would think that everyone would be backing this important agreement. Opening up of tariff-free entry would mean that with implementation of the program around 95 per cent of the exports will be tariff free.
This government will fight to make sure we can deliver a better future. We will fight for our exporters and we will fight for this free trade agreement, and it is high time that members opposite did exactly the same. If they want a bright future for Western Australia they will be backing the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have failed to respond to the fact that Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett said, in relation to the stage 2 of the Perth Freight Link, there is no route or design, there is no planning and the connection is still a long way off. Given stage 1 of the project is 80 per cent federally funded, how will the government ensure that stage 2 of this project is actually completed by the Barnett government?
I answered this question on Thursday and it is practically exactly the same question. The reality is, as I have just mentioned, this government has a $5.4 billion infrastructure program for Western Australia. They are significant projects. One of them includes the Perth Freight Link. Some of these projects are at an early stage of development and some are advanced. Indeed, the Prime Minister opened one on the weekend. That is all a part of the program we have in place. So not everything about every project is being done this week. It is a program that will be spread over a few years.
We are committed to the Perth Freight Link. The early advanced stages are under way. It would be a lot easier to build this project if the honourable member had not, when she was planning minister, sold off the corridor. Now we need to have tunnels and other more complex ways of building this vital piece of infrastructure—because the honourable member for Perth tried to sabotage it when she was planning minister. She tried to sabotage this vital project for Western Australia. Our government's commitment to this project is real. It is progressing. It is progressing in a logical way, and we will deliver it for Western Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Defence APS staff recruitment has been under an interim recruitment arrangement, which the APS commissioner lifted on 1 July 2015. However, many Defence APS vacancies still exist in Defence establishments in my electorate. Can the minister please tell the House what the position is regarding filling these, particularly in regional Defence establishments?
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
I thank the member for Indi for her question. As she said, there are significant Defence establishments in her electorate—at Bandiana and Bonegilla. Indeed, so far as the Australian Army is concerned, these are the centres for its logistical training centres. Why are they important? They are important because logistical training is what provides us with drivers, mechanics and electricians—people with the range of skills which are absolutely essential for the functioning of the Australian Army as part of the Australian Defence Force. Indeed, as I recall, there are some 1,700 Australian Defence Force personnel in the honourable member's electorate, and that includes some 200 civilians.
There may be some misapprehension from the honourable member about what is happening in relation to Defence recruitment. But there is certainly no freeze in relation to that. But there are two important components of what is occurring at the present time. First there is the First Principles review, which was provided to the government. The review team members included Mr David Peever, former senator Robert Hill, former Labor finance minister Lindsay Tanner, former Chief of Army General Peter Leahy and one of Australia's leading shipbuilders, Jim McDowall. That group of five experts reported to the government on the corporate structure of the Defence Department in Australia. They came to the conclusion that, to some extent, the middle management of the Defence corporate structure was out of shape. What the secretary of the department, Mr Richardson, is now doing is working through and managing those changes as a result of the implementation of the Peever review. There are a number of reforms, including the winding back into the Defence Department of the former Defence Materiel Organisation.
Secondly, in the forthcoming Defence white paper, there will be a range of new employment opportunities. One thing that is clear in terms of having a capable Defence Force in the future is that we need what are called the enablers—that is, cyberspace surveillance, communications and things like that. That will call upon a new range of skills which will be needed by the Defence Force over the coming years and decades. So yes, there is some some stabilisation of the employment trends in Defence at the present time. Yes, it is important to ensure that places like Bonegilla and Bandiana continue to have the Defence Force personnel which are required, and we are committed to that. And yes, there will be a new range of jobs and opportunities for members of the Australian Defence Force in coming years.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister explain how this government's free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan will deliver jobs and growth to Western Australia? Minister, are there any threats to the realisation of these benefits?
I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. He understands the strong link between the Western Australian economy and the economies of the three giant North Asian countries with whom we have negotiated free trade agreements. In fact, Western Australia is more dependent upon the Chinese market for our exports than any other state or territory—five times more than Queensland, 10 times more than New South Wales and 13 times more than Victoria. In 2014, Western Australia exported almost three times more goods to China than Japan, Western Australia's next largest trading partner. In the last year, China accounted for over 50 per cent of Western Australia's exports, with a value of over $64 billion, and the resources industry makes up around two-thirds of that percentage.
Under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, all tariffs on resources and energy products will be eliminated. I say that again: they will be eliminated. Most of these gains will happen when the agreement enters into force. The agreement means certainty for other commodities, locking in zero tariffs for iron, gold, crude petroleum and LNG. Removing these tariffs means security and the competitive advantage of Australian exports within the Chinese market. It means more jobs for Western Australians and more jobs across the country. This is not rocket science. Last year, China also accounted for almost $1½ billion of WA's total agricultural exports. China was Western Australia's largest market for barley, wool, mutton, oats, sheepskins and wine—fabulous West Australian wines. The agreement will remove the significant tariff on these products, as well as on seafood, effective as soon as the agreement enters into force. And the tariffs of between 10 and 25 per cent on beef, sheepmeat, live animals and wine will be eliminated.
I cannot understand why Labor is opposing the China free trade agreement. Opposing this agreement means Labor is opposing jobs and growth for Western Australia. Western Australia has the most to gain from this free trade agreement and the most to lose from this union led propaganda campaign. I do not know why I have to remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the trade between China and Western Australia that powered our country during the global financial crisis; it was not Labor's chaotic economic management. The trade union campaign is an assault on Western Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has thrown his lot in with militant east coast unionists against the people of Western Australia. He would rather forgo Western Australia's future economic prosperity than stand up to the unions and stand up for Western Australian workers.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the two years since he became Prime Minister unemployment is up, debt and deficit is up, growth is down and confidence is certainly down. Is this the record of the best possible Prime Minister?
This is from a Leader of the Opposition who backstabbed two prime ministers and then lied about it on radio!
Opposition members interjecting—
We're not your problem, Tony!
Members on my left! The Leader of the Opposition!
All this Leader of the Opposition can do is play politics, play Canberra games and indulge in all this kind of silliness, when the people of Australia want a government which gets on with the job. And that is exactly what we have done. Every day since the election we have been focused on backing hardworking Australians. We have been focused on jobs, on growth and on community safety. We have been cutting taxes, we have been building roads and we have been encouraging free trade.
And just in the last week, while members opposite have been engaging in Canberra games—it is all they can do; more Canberra games from members opposite—we have been doing what the people of our country expect. We have been making our economy stronger, and there is no better proof of that—
How's your job?
The member for Charlton is warned!
than the fact that we discovered last week that unemployment is down and employment is up—167,000 new jobs since this year began and 300,000 more jobs since this government was in office. This is because what we are doing is working with the creative businesses of this country. We are working with the decent, hardworking people of our country. We are stopping those dodgy, dishonest and corrupt union officials that that Leader of the Opposition is constantly protecting. We are stopping them from ripping off the decent workers of our country.
We are encouraging the decent businesses of our country to get on with it—with things like the free trade agreement with China, that this Leader of the Opposition is trying to sabotage with a campaign of racist lies. Now, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: stop listening to the CFMEU and start listening to the decent people of Australia, who want this country to go ahead under this government.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is building a stronger economy, especially in Western Australia? What will this mean for jobs in Western Australia?
I really do thank the member the Durack for that question. Her electorate has been an engine room of Australian exports over the last few years. And despite the fact that we have faced very significant commodity price falls and despite the fact that there has been a drop in the iron ore price from around $120 a tonne to $50 a tonne—
The excuses are coming!
I remind the member for Charlton that he has been warned!
The fact is—and I am sure that the Labor Party even might welcome this!—that export volumes through Port Hedland have now reached a record high. There was a record high in volumes of iron in the last month ore through Port Hedland, which is very good news because it means that whilst demand is growing out of China at a reduced price the fact is that our mines are still working and we are entirely competitive.
Despite the fact that we have had commodity prices fall, 32,000 more Western Australians are in work today than were two years ago when Labor left office—32,000. I can report to the House that across Australia, following the last have-a-go budget three months ago, 60,000 new jobs have been created—60,000 new jobs have been created in Australia in the last three months!
What's the unemployment rate, Joe?
That is good news, isn't it! And in the last three months after Labor's last budget, how many jobs were created under Wayne Swan? How many? 10,000?
Government members: No!
The Treasurer will refer to members by their correct titles.
Was it 5,000?
Government members: No!
2,000?
Government members: No!
1,000?
Government members: No!
It was 500 jobs! The member for Lilley must be incredibly proud of that—500 jobs. Only about 59,500 jobs short of what we have done in the last three months.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
But we want to do more. That is why we are absolutely committed to the free trade agreement with China, because we can get rid of the taxes on our businesses. We got rid of the carbon tax, we got rid of the mining tax, we got rid of the bank deposit tax and we got rid of the Labor Party's car-manufacturing tax that was killing the Australian industry. We get rid of Labor Party taxes and, under the free trade agreement with China, we are getting China to get rid of the taxes on the things we produce.
So they are abolishing a 10 per cent tariff—a tax—on our broccoli and a 25 per cent tax on watermelons. All of these businesses actually in the south—all these farms south of Perth—orange growers are going to have a 20 per cent Chinese tax abolished on their produce. Of course, for marmalade, which is a value-add example of food processing, the Chinese currently apply a 30 per cent tax on Australian marmalade. That is abolished under the free trade agreement. We are the only friends of job creation in Australia and in Western Australia.
Just before I call the member for Blaxland: I had asked the member for Charlton to cease interjecting. I warned him and I warned him a second time. He interjected continuously through the answer and he can leave under 94(a).
The member for Charlton then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister the Communications. I refer to the minister's responsibility for the ABC. In a press conference broadcast today on the ABC, the Prime Minister is heard saying:
I'm worried about being the best possible Prime Minister.
Does the minister really believe that this bloke is the best possible Prime Minister? And is the minister concerned that the mere broadcast of this train wreck of a media conference is evidence of the ABC breaching its charter?
The member for Blaxland will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
The members on my right will cease interjecting. It might be inventive but that question is completely out of order.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister please advise the House of the stringent safeguards in place for Australian workers under Australia's landmark agreement with China? How will the agreement boost jobs and growth for all Australians?
I thank the member for his question but also indicate that it is a very important question, especially given the inconvenience and the insult experienced by 60,000 householders in his electorate yesterday afternoon, who were subjected again to deceitful robocalls from the most discredited union in Australia. The significance of this question is that it goes to the heart of claims against the China deal that we have heard from those opposite and endlessly from the CFMEU—in particular, the claim that labour market testing is not required for $150 million plus infrastructure projects. The truth is: our investment facilitation agreements—the IFAs—contain far more stringent safeguards than existed previously.
Ms Chesters interjecting —
The member for Bendigo is warned.
For example, under Labor's enterprise migration agreement, or EMA, on which the IFA was modelled, all that was required was a labour market analysis—that is, a report on the state of the local labour market. You look out of the window and you make an assessment. Under our IFA, a labour market analysis and labour market testing—that is, advertising locally for Australian workers—are mandatory before a single visa will be granted. But do not take my word for it. For the benefit of those opposite who might be listening, senior immigration official David Wilden was asked about these IFA requirements at last week's JSCOT hearing.
Ms Butler interjecting—
I remind the member for Griffith that she is warned.
He said:
If, for example, you came in, as you said, as a company wanting to set up an infrastructure project over $150 million, you are then bound by the system that says: you absolutely mandatorily have to test the labour market.
This contrasts with the 2011 official guidelines for Labor's EMA, their enterprise migration agreement, which says, 'You will be requested to submit an analysis of the labour market requirements for your projects, and labour market testing is not required.' That was your government document, not ours.
So there you have it, Mr Speaker—the facts as opposed to the misinformation and the scaremongering. Now it is crunch time for the Leader of the Opposition. It is time for those opposite to stop siding with the CFMEU and back this agreement. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Why has the government imposed a $15 million screening threshold on Chinese investments in agricultural land, while the Americans, Chileans and New Zealanders have a threshold of more than $1 billion on the same investments?
I thank the member opposite for her question. The fact is: this is a new ruling and policy by the government.
We took it to the election.
We took this to the last election. It was a commitment. We were voted in as the government. Our policy obligations were actually put in place—which was an unusual experience for the electorate, having had six years of Labor. But the fact of the matter is: the countries that the member opposite quoted previously had agreements which bound a lower threshold—in fact, a threshold of zero. As you might understand, being the shadow minister for foreign affairs—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
they are, therefore, not subject to any change of policy because they are bound. As a consequence, every other country in the world faces the new government policy of a $15 million threshold where they do qualify to be considered by the FIRB. Therefore, this is an exercise in meeting our election commitments but also in meeting the commitments that both sides of the parliament had made under free trade agreements with countries previously.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
Mr Tehan interjecting—
The members for Bass and Wannon will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on the benefits to date of the government's free trade agreements with Japan and Korea? How will the export agreement with China further benefit rural and regional businesses, particularly in Western Australia?
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The members for Solomon and Grayndler will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Coming from the seat of O'Connor, he, more than anybody else, would know about the sort of vision that is required to build a nation, because it was O'Connor who put the pipeline in from the coast to open up the goldfields around Kalgoorlie. It is this government that continues on with that water infrastructure program in building dams and making sure that the lives of people are going to be better by making sure we have that investment. The member for O'Connor is a person who has been part of that area since 1867—he is still on the family farm—so he has a strong history in the area.
It is very important that the Australian people and, indeed, the people of Western Australia understand how important it is that we expand our agricultural production into new markets. We have to be the economic managers who deal with issues such as the downturn in harder commodities, such as coal and iron ore, by expanding our exports of soft commodities, for which agriculture is such a vital part.
Through the work that we have done in the Korean free trade agreement, we have seen beef go from $423.6 million in January to June 2014 to $550.8 million after the free trade agreement in January to June 2015. It is a 30 per cent increase.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield.
It goes to show you how these trade agreements have real effect in the money our nation earns. Likewise, with cherries, even from Tasmania: $69,000 before the free trade agreement, for six months, to $3.5 million—another example. And table grapes: we know we grow them around the Swan Valley in Western Australia, and we have an immense increase in our exports. In fact, our exports into Korea have gone from nothing to over $2 million. And wine is a big industry for Western Australia, in the regions around Margaret River. Under the Korean free trade agreement that has gone from $4.6 million in the six months to June 2014 to $8.9 million in the six months to June 2015. What we have done with the Japanese free trade agreement is similar, going from $685 million for the six months to June 2014 in beef to just shy of $900 million.
We can see that to grow our economy, to give people jobs, to bring a better return through the farm gate we have to listen to people who actually know about business, listen to people such as Premier Jay Weatherill, listen to people such as Annastacia Palaszczuk, listen to people such as the Premier of Victoria and stop listening to people such as the progenitor of the BLF, the CFMEU. We have to realise that if we truly believe that we are right for this nation then we must stand behind jobs for Western Australians.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The islands of Saibai, Poruma and Warraber in the Torres Strait are at risk because of sea level rise caused by climate change. What does the minister say to the residents of the Torres Strait, near our border with Papua New Guinea, who are facing the same risks as our Pacific neighbours who are seeking action so that migration does not become their only option?
Mr Speaker, a point of order: the issue of climate change is not within the responsibilities of the Minister for Immigration. That question is more properly directed to the Minister for the Environment or even to the Prime Minister. The minister could answer questions about visa issues and other things, but not issues about climate change. Therefore I would suggest that the member direct his question to the correct minister rather than the incorrect one.
On the point of order, the question goes directly to issues of border protection and also goes directly to one of the most significant migration issues within the Pacific.
I am going to rule the question out of order.
I acknowledge that the Minister for Immigration is laughing at this moment, but we are talking about one of the most significant migration issues in the Pacific, and we need to be allowed to ask on that. There was no opportunity to rephrase. That is two occasions on which you have ruled out, without an opportunity to rephrase, questions that are clearly relevant to the portfolio.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The Minister for Social Services and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting, as will the member for Sydney. Member for Watson: I listened very carefully to the question. I hesitated to call the Leader of the House; I was about to make a ruling. But the point you made about the opportunity to rephrase is a fair point, and I will give the member the opportunity to rephrase. It is a fair point.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is still to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The islands of Saibai, Poruma and Warraber in the Torres Strait are at risk because of sea level rises caused by climate change. What does the minister say to the residents of the Torres Strait, near our border with Papua New Guinea, who are facing the same risks as our Pacific neighbours who are seeking action so that migration does not become their only option, including migration to Australia, in the face of the threat of climate change?
Mr Speaker, a point of order: you very generously allowed them to try to rephrase the question. They asked exactly the same question that they asked before. It is still not within the realm of responsibility of the Minister for Immigration.
The question was not identical. The minister can refer to the very last part of the question and does not need to respond to the first part of the question.
Thanks so much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for his question. My good friend the Minister for the Environment has a lot of information in relation to issues surrounding climate change, and the government obviously provides significant support to neighbouring countries, to people within the—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned.
region and the minister no doubt at an opportune time can outline that information. In terms of what we provide by way of assistance through this portfolio, obviously we work very closely with our near neighbours on a number of issues in relation to the immigration portfolio—in particular, transnational crime and issues of that nature—across the region. So, we have very good partners and very good relationships and we intend to continue to build on those.
I do note that there was some commentary by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to some comments I made last week. I thought, well, if he is willing to provide a character assessment on this topic, I should reply with a character assessment—
I remind the minister to remain relevant to the question.
If you are under fire from Bill Shorten, my recommendation is to seek solace in The Latham Diaries.
The minister will not use props.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. I have allowed the second part of the question. The minister can quote but not use props.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
It is highly disorderly to interject when I am seeking to make a ruling. The member for Newcastle is warned. The minister can quote from a document. He cannot use a prop but he must remain directly relevant to the substance of the question.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
I made a comment last week—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The member for Adelaide.
and I apologised in relation to that comment, for those who were genuinely offended. But then we come to the Leader of the Opposition—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
who sought to make some sort of political opportunity out of this issue. The issue for this Leader of the Opposition is in relation to character, and he has some questions to answer.
The minister must remain relevant to the question. The minister must remain relevant to the policy substance of the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will. The question was in relation to comments in relation to character assessments that were offered, including from this Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.
The minister will resume his seat.
I am happy, at any time, to give him a free assessment because plenty of others have.
I call the member for Cowan.
My question is for the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister update the House on the benefits to higher education services of the export agreement with China, particularly in my home state of Western Australia?
Honourable members interjecting—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned! I could not hear the last part of the question.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. I am going to ask the member for Cowan to ask his question again.
My question is for the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister update the House on the benefits to higher education services of the export agreement with China, particularly in my home state of Western Australia?
I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I know that he, like most members of this House, is a great enthusiast for the international education market and for growing international education because of the jobs and the growth that that brings for our economy. In fact, international education is our fourth largest export industry, after iron ore, coal and natural gas, and it is one in front of gold. I think that most Australians are not aware of just how vitally important education is to our economy and to jobs. In fact, it directly employs about 135,000 Australians and is worth about $18 billion more than $18 billion of value to the Australian economy. Since the election of the Abbott government that value has increased by $2 billion.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.
There has been a 14.6 per cent increase in international education enrolments in the last two years because of the policies that this government has introduced with the support of the states and with the support of the sector. Therefore, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement represents a new opportunity for international education providers in Australia, particularly in a seat like Canning. Canning has a large number of industries, from bauxite and gold mining right across to tourism. Also little known is its education institutions, its education assets, such as the Peel campus of Murdoch University and the Polytechnic's Armadale campus, which was formally the Armadale campus of Curtin University. These institutions will benefit from the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement because on the day that the free trade agreement is finalised 77 new providers will immediately become approved providers on the Chinese government's official website, opening more serveries to international students who wish to come to Australia, giving Australian institutions more opportunities to have joint ventures in China and arrangements with China that expand their operations here and there, and vice versa. There are great opportunities. For example, there are 28 non-TAFE RTOs, registered training organisations, in Canning that will benefit and have the opportunity to get on that list of approved providers and therefore increase their revenue.
These things will happen if the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement goes ahead. They are vital for changing the economy in Western Australia and elsewhere to an economy that draws on many different sources and is therefore flexible and agile in a changing world economic environment. Who could not be in favour of this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement? Sadly, the Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition, the CFMEU, the MUA, the AWU and Pauline Hanson—that is the company the Leader of the Opposition is keeping on this issue— (Time expired)
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his pre-emptive opening of the Gateway WA project yesterday, which will actually be completed next year. Prime Minister, how many additional dollars did this government contribute to funding this project?
It is very interesting the member for Grayndler asked this question because when members opposite talked about the Perth Gateway project they said it would be funded out of the mining tax.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
That mining tax raised no money whatsoever. A big, fat zero was contributed by members opposite. I tell you what, Mr Speaker, I will have more questions like this. They talk and we build. We have built the Perth Gateway. Members opposite did not—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
I have concluded my answer.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Boothby will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. I want to hear the member for Boothby's question. The member for Boothby can start again.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister inform the House how the government's investment in key infrastructure will help Australian businesses get their goods to market sooner and fully take advantage of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement?
Firstly I congratulate the member for Boothby on his recent announcement. He will be missed by many in this place and his constituents for the job he has done.
Last weekend was a big weekend for infrastructure development. On Saturday the Prime Minister announced $116 million for the Armadale Road duplication in Western Australia, a key part of the development of that great state. Of course, yesterday, as has just been previously mentioned, the Gateway project was delivered by this government—not talked about but delivered by this government—without a mining tax. It is a key element of our plan. In addition there is the Perth Freight Link—a great project which will be delivered. It will fix a problem created by a former planning minister of Western Australia, who built over the corridor. It cost billions of dollars extra—billions that ought not to have been spent—because she built over the corridor when she was planning minister.
This morning we announced a very substantial additional project in South Australia—in Adelaide, in the electorate of the National President of the Labor Party, who has got his head down. I am presuming I am waiting for the press release to come out from the member for Wakefield, who is not here again, to welcome the announcement of nearly $1 billion for the Northern Connector, a project that in 2008 the then transport minister asked the South Australian government to do planning work on and nothing ever happened. This government has put together three deals with the South Australian Labor government. The Prime Minister—the infrastructure Prime Minister—with Premier Weatherill, who supports the free-trade agreement, has put together three deals for $2½ billion worth of spending on South Road, benefiting the member for Adelaide's seat, the member for Port Adelaide's seat, the member for Wakefield's seat and the member for Kingston's seat. They are all projects that the shadow minister opposes through his language and his rhetoric against what this government is doing. We are delivering these projects—$2½ billion on the North-South Corridor—and delivering on what the Prime Minister said, a completely upgraded corridor in a decade. They are three major steps towards that, working hand-in-glove with the South Australian Labor government to do so.
This is a key road upgrade for the freight industry in South Australia. It will deliver a 15.5 kilometre greenfield piece of infrastructure, getting rid of six intersections on Port Wakefield Road, ensuring there is some $14.9-billion worth of additional economic activity. It will really assist the free-trade agreements in getting product to market through that port, ensuring that we can take advantage of what great opportunities the Minister for Trade has delivered through the free-trade agreement he has negotiated with China. The Premier is right: we should support the free-trade agreement with China. The South Australian Labor Premier does, the Victorian Labor Premier does so it is about time the Leader of the Opposition did the same.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The government is cutting some $270 million from the Medicare safety net meaning cancer patients receiving life-saving radiation oncology could pay $12,000 for their treatment. Reports today state that the government has delayed legislating this cut until after the Canning by-election. Is this not just another example of the Prime Minister hiding cuts from voters before an election? And do not the voters of Canning deserve the truth?
The truth is that when members opposite were in government, they cut $1.8 billion out of Medicare. That is what they did.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
The proposals that this government has to make some adjustments in the area that the shadow minister mentioned—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
flow from independent reviews conducted by the former government in 2009 and 2011.
My question is for the Minister for Industry and Science. Will the minister outline to the House how the agreement with China is good for the medical technology sector. How will agreements like this one help innovative Australian businesses both in Adelaide and across Australia to boost their exports, create jobs and grow the economy?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I was just down in Hindmarsh the other day, as I have been pretty regularly over the last two years. Every time I go to Adelaide, I find another business that is innovating and exporting and that is really important with the transition that we see going on in industry in Australia at the moment. There are businesses out there excelling.
In terms of exports, an interesting area that we are growing exports in is medical devices to China. We have seen the increase to be by as much as up to $100 million by 2013-14. That is the first year that China, or any other Asian country for that matter, has been in the top five of export destinations for these medical devices. There is great potential for businesses not only in Adelaide but right across Australia to grow their exports in this area. And that is why it is so important that under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement that there is the removal of four per cent tariffs on hearing aids and implantable medical devices. This presents to businesses in Hindmarsh, in Adelaide and in general a great opportunity to export even more.
One such business which today received a grant, iDataMap corporation, has developed a smartcard called a RadCard for the storage of digital images, which are normally held on X-ray film. It means that more data can be taken by the patient when he goes to see his doctor and a better diagnosis provided. But, just as importantly, this company will employ some 30 to 40 people in South Australia including software and technical engineers. iDataMap is just one of the 24 Australian companies that has received $14.6 million in commercialisation investments today to help push their good ideas into commercialised ideas and, of course, into exports. That comes under that Entrepreneurs' Program, which allocates around $100 million annually. That part of our innovation policy also fits into the growth centre policy and is supplemented by the Medical Technologies and Pharmaceutical Growth Centre. That growth centre is looking specifically at export opportunities, particularly into our northern neighbours including China.
So where is the Labor Party when it comes to supporting jobs in Adelaide? Where is the Labor Party when it comes to supporting innovation in highly skilled technical exports? It is nowhere. It is tied up in a xenophobic campaign that is costing Australians jobs. On this side of the House, we are about jobs. On about that side of the House, they are about politics.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When asked about plans to introduce a GP tax before the Griffith by-election, the Prime Minister said:
Nothing is being considered. Nothing is being proposed. Nothing is planned.
Given that after the Griffith by-election the Prime Minister tried to this hit every Australian with a $7 GP tax to visit the doctor, how can any voter in the Canning by-election believe anything that the current Prime Minister tells them?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned.
This is from the Leader of the Opposition who backstabbed two Prime Ministers and then lied about it on national radio. This is a Leader of the Opposition who simply cannot be trusted. I say to the people of Canning: if the Labor leader's colleagues cannot trust him, you cannot trust him. If this is the Leader of the Opposition who Labor prime ministers could not trust, you in Canning should never trust this person. I am very proud to support our candidate for Canning, who is not only an absolutely outstanding Australian who has served our country in the Army; he now wants to serve the people of Canning in the parliament.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
I am very proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with such an extraordinarily talented, able and decent human being. Our parliament would be very lucky and privileged to have such an individual to represent the people of Canning. Not only do we have an absolutely outstanding candidate for Canning; we have a very strong record of supporting the people of Western Australia: the anti-Western Australian carbon tax, gone; the anti-Western Australian mining tax, gone. We have done the things that members opposite could not do when they were in government. We have got taxes down. We are getting the deficit under control. We have stopped the boats that Labor started.
We are doing what members opposite just could not do. They had six years to negotiate a free trade agreement with China. What did they do? Nothing, and now, having done nothing for six years, they are trying to sabotage this agreement which is absolutely vital for the people of this country, and in particular the people of Western Australia, who so utterly depend upon exports. I know the people of Western Australia very, very well. They are 10 per cent of our population. They are 16 per cent of our GDP, but they are 50 per cent of our exports. That is why they want the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and they cannot understand why the only people whom the Leader of the Opposition seems to be listening to on this are the discredited thugs of the CFMEU. He should start listening to the honest workers of Western Australia and stop listening to the CFMEU, and let the China-Australia free trade agreement go through this parliament as soon as possible.
Before I call the member for Tangney, the member for Newcastle has been warned twice and continued to interject right through the answer. The member for Newcastle can leave under 94(a).
The member for Newcastle then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister inform the House how Western Australian families will benefit from the government's increased investment in child care? How will this assistance also help Western Australian families better afford their own homes?
I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He, like all of those on this side of the House, and I would hope on the other side of the House, will be pleased about the fact that there are more jobs, that there are 20,000 extra jobs a month this year compared to 2000 in the last year of the former Labor government. These jobs are important for families because the coalition's Jobs for Families package, which provides more affordable access to quality child care in this country will support 1.2 million families, including 90,000 families in Western Australia. That also includes some 2,262 children in Western Australia, of which 1,319 are Indigenous children, who will be supported by the budget-based funding to some 25 centres in disadvantaged areas.
The Jobs for Families package is about giving families more choice, particularly the choice to be able to work, and work more. It is important for families today with the cost-of-living pressures that are on them and the challenges in terms of housing affordability for both parents to be in work. Over the last generation, from 1981 to 2011, the average median mortgage as a percentage of household incomes for families under the age of 45 has doubled over the last 30 years, and of single income, two-parent families the percentage 30 years ago was one in two for those under 45 or looking to buy a house. That has fallen to less than one in five. What that says to us is this. It is making work easier to get into, creating jobs and, importantly, ensuring that where both parents in families need to work and can be in work, they can access that work by having more affordable child care. It is not just that. In 2012 when those opposite were in office, we had some 19 per cent of families where there was no-one in a job at all. There was 530,000-odd children under the age of 15 growing up in a family that does not have a job. We are trying to ensure that the cost of child care can be more affordable and we are doing that by making it more affordable for government as well.
We are looking at making changes to the family tax benefit payments to ensure that we can pay for our $3½ billion worth of increased investment in child care. Those opposite opposed those changes. They would rather keep rolling out the cheques than ensure that we make better use of taxpayers' money to give families greater choice over being able to work more. That is why we responsibly budget and plan for these increases in investment to make child care more affordable. The only ones standing in the way of that are those who sit opposite, those who want to run up the debt and run up the deficit rather than ensuring there are savings in place to invest in important, affordable child-care reforms.
What about families' debt?
The member for Jagajaga is preventing the member for Gorton getting the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his 2002 statement about his personal pick for vice president of the industrial relations umpire Michael Lawler, and I quote: 'Vice President Lawler has the human insights, intellectual skills and strength of character to enhance the commission's work'? Does the Prime Minister retain confidence in Mr Lawler?
If members opposite have a problem with a member of the Fair Work Commission, there are actions that they can take.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
If they have a problem with anyone on the Fair Work Commission, I suggest that they take the appropriate action.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the government's new employment services program, jobactive? How will this program benefit job seekers in my electorate of Moore, and Western Australians more generally?
I thank the member for Moore for his question. He is a member who takes a great interest in the issue of employment. We on this side of the House were pleased to see the employment figures released last week which showed a fall in the national unemployment rate and the creation of some 17,400 jobs in the month of August, with the number of people now in work at a record high.
As part of a range of measures, jobactive is a $6.8 billion investment by this government in assisting job seekers on their journey from welfare into work. It is a program that delivers better services to job seekers and better services to employers. Jobactive contains measures which will be of particular interest to the constituents of the member for Moore, such as the $1.2 billion investment in wage subsidies delivered more flexibly and delivered sooner, which was what employers were asking for, encouraging more employers to employ more job seekers. Under Jobactive the Work for the Dole goes national, allowing job seekers to learn new skills and at the same time give back to their community.
Employers are telling me that many young people lack the basic skills that would make them competitive in the workplace, and Work for the Dole will assist them to get those skills. We have the $330 million youth employment strategy to help more young people into work, particularly those young people at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. We have the $212 million Transition to Work program, providing intensive assistance for young people, such as coaching and mentoring, literacy and numeracy training and postplacement support—helping them address the barriers that are keeping them out of the workforce, barriers that are very difficult for some people to overcome. We have the $106 million innovative youth program, providing $19.4 million to support young people with a mental illness to get into work; providing $20 million to assist migrants and refugees into work.
Employment services have their place but the most important thing is a strong economy. That is why we abolished the carbon tax and we abolished the mining tax—two taxes so destructive to Western Australia. That is why we have negotiated a free trade agreement with China, to assist that state with its all-important exports I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to drop his crazy plan to reimpose a carbon tax, and I challenge him to, for once, stand up to the CFMEU and support a free trade agreement with China.
In the 10 seconds I have left I have more than enough time to advise the House of all that Labor's is doing in the space of employment, and that is: not much, not much at all. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, after 23 very well handled questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do indeed.
Please proceed.
Today in question time the Prime Minister suggested that the basis of my question that GATEWAY WA was funded by the former government was not true. Here is a photo of myself, Troy Buswell, Stephen Smith and the member for Swan. The member for Swan was there at the opening of the first stage in 2013. I seek leave to table this document, which I am sure he is going to agree to.
Leave not granted.
I am sure the member for Swan wants it.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Perth?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do claim to have been misrepresented.
Can the member point out where she believes has been misrepresented?
Claims have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister that I sabotaged planning for Perth port. I make it clear that we went to four elections with a pledge to delete the Fremantle Eastern Bypass. We went to those elections with a promise to build a modern, 21st century, outer-harbour, which is the infrastructure that Western Australia needs.
The member for Perth has outlined where she believes she has been misrepresented.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating to be a member of the House Committee in place of Mr Ruddock.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to the membership of the House Committee.
Leave granted.
I move:
That:
Mr Ruddock be discharged from the House Committee and in his place Mr Buchholz be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today to present the second annual Investment Statement to the parliament. This government instituted the Investment Statement because we understand the critical link between investment and the health of our national economy. We also understand that investment and trade are two sides of the same coin. Like trade, investment has helped secure greater prosperity for Australia throughout our modern history. To be clear, investment equals jobs and growth. Without investment, we would not have been able to create the strong national industries that underpin our economy, and each of those industries is a creator of Australian jobs.
Investment means innovation, it means skills development and it means entrepreneurship—all important drivers of job creation. The link between investment, jobs and growth is real. The evidence is here and it is strong. Compelling new research from the Economist Intelligence Unit, which I have the pleasure to announce today, confirms foreign direct investment has a positive, causal impact on employment in Australia. In fact, modelling based on data since 2000 shows that a $1 billion increase in FDI would result in around 1,000 Australian jobs being created.
Investment has created and retained jobs for Australians by expanding industries, developing our rich resources and contributing to our international exports. A great example is one of our long-term and successful investors—Mitsui & Co. In 1963 Mitsui partnered with Thiess Brothers to develop and invest in the Moura coalmine in Queensland’s Bowen Basin. That came just six years after the signing of the commerce agreement with Japan. The project operates today under the name of Dawson and, five decades on, Mitsui is still involved, priding itself on being a loyal founding partner and a patient long-term investor.
After Moura, Mitsui replicated its investment model in other sectors and now has a range of diversified interests across Australia including iron ore, LNG, infrastructure, grain, chemicals, steel and financial services. Mitsui has grown with Australia. The company invested over $14 billion in the last 10 years alone. It is now the fourth largest exporter from Australia, a trade that is worth more than $8 billion annually. It has paid over $8 billion in federal corporate tax, state royalties and resources taxes. But the relationship cannot be measured in dollar figures alone. The company is a strong contributor to regional communities and education scholarships, with over 40 years of sponsoring Australian students to Japan and, more recently, participation in the New Colombo Plan. The company is a very strong friend of Australia and, crucially, the Australian joint ventures in which Mitsui participates employ over 20,000 people.
History teaches us several important things about foreign investment. It shows that Australia has always needed foreign direct investment to supplement its own thin capital markets and savings. It also reveals that better trade relationships lead to increased investment flows, and increased investment from our trading partners follows implementation of our trade agreements.
A year of achievements
This year the government has made significant achievements in bringing in new investment—investments that will pay dividends in job delivery and growth in the years ahead. First and foremost, we now have trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. Two of these are already delivering substantive benefit to our economy. The third, with China, is set to deliver billions of dollars in additional revenue for industries throughout Australia and a quantum leap in our investment flows.
These agreements will have a transformative impact on our economy and therefore job creation. They will also increase access to overseas markets for our goods and services. The investment frameworks established by these agreements—and those currently under negotiation—will support a more attractive and predictable investment environment and help drive further economic integration in the region. This investment will help expand production to meet increasing demand and support research to develop technologies of the future.
As a result of these agreements, we will also see a once-in-a-generation shift towards investment in services. This is important as we move beyond the boom cycle of resource investments. It is also important because we know services employ nine out of 10 Australians—services that will be increasingly in demand among Asia’s three billion strong emerging middle class over the coming decades. The opportunities are spectacular—in health, in tourism, in hospitality, in education and training and in financial services, to name just a few. These industries will create the jobs of the future.
The $6.5 billion acquisition of Australia’s logistics company Toll by Japan Post is a massive endorsement of Australian services, our skills and our expertise. This investment will enable Toll to spearhead Japan Post’s global expansion ambitions in logistics, headquartered in Melbourne, in time creating many new jobs in Australia and exciting career opportunities for talented Australians in an expanding global business.
In a year where global investment flows contracted, 2014, Australia attracted $140.1 billion in new foreign direct investment. This was up $21.2 billion, or 17.8 per cent, on the $119.0 billion invested into Australia in 2013. The total stock of FDI in Australia as at year end 2014 amounted to $688 billion, or 2.2 per cent of total global FDI. Details of this investment are outlined in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s second annual international investment report, which I will release today. Austrade’s investment outcomes, in terms of the number of projects supported, were up 28 per cent in fiscal year 2014-15, reaching almost $7.75 billion.
But success has not just fallen in our lap. It has required us to focus, to revitalise our efforts and to make sure we understand our priorities. Last year we boosted Austrade through the appointment of senior investment specialists who provide expert insight and knowledge, helping get major projects across the line. I personally have conducted 67 investment roundtables in 27 countries and, as a result, I know investors understand the great strengths that we have as a country. These are: sound macroeconomic management, a highly skilled workforce, a commitment to reform to ensure Australia is an attractive place to do business, significant infrastructure needs and a great pipeline of potential projects. But we need to keep making sure we are speaking to the right people—I have made this a particular focus of my work as trade and investment minister.
And I believe our efforts are having an impact. Last year we saw an increase of 40 per cent in FDI stock out of Canada. This was driven in part by significant infrastructure and other investments from that country’s major pension funds. CPPIB, OMERS (Borealis), Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and OPTrust are all groups that I have made sure to meet over the past 12 months to spread the word about Australia as a stable and secure investment destination, at a time when investors around the world have great nervousness. These funds, with total net assets in excess of $500 billion, praise Australia for its economic stability and the quality of its investment opportunities.
We've continued the hard work of taking Australian business delegations to the world—14 at ministerial level in the past financial year. Last year, I spoke about Chinese property group Wanda's commitment of $900 million coming out of the highly successful Australia Business Week in China event, hosted by the Prime Minister and myself in April 2014. Since then, Wanda has announced plans to invest almost $1.2 billion in a major mixed-use development at Circular Quay in Sydney.
This government places a priority on investment in the tourism sector. Why? Because tourism contributes roughly $43.5 billion to GDP and provides jobs for almost a million people. Tourism is our largest services export at $33 billion. Tourism can be our fastest growing sector this decade, but we need to position ourselves well and we need investment. Along with Wanda, this year has seen some significant investment successes. Chinese property developer Greenland will include a 200-room high-end hotel in its Sydney CBD development. Hong Kong's Far East Consortium plans to bring back the prestigious Ritz Carlton brand to Australia (in Melbourne and Perth) A consortium made up of Echo Entertainment, Far East Consortium and Chow Tai Fook Enterprises will undertake a multibillion-dollar redevelopment of Queen's Wharf in Brisbane. For the Queen's Wharf development alone it has been reported that 2,000 jobs will be created in the construction phase and 8,000 following completion.
In January this year, I led a delegation of 450 business representatives to India for Australia's largest ever business promotion in that country. This complex undertaking covered 14 industry sectors across 125 events in eight cities. It was welcomed by the Indian government and again shows that we are serious in our intent to deliver increased investment and business for Australian firms. Negotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with India are well advanced, promising significant new trade and investment opportunities between our two countries.
Efforts are well underway for Australian Business Week in Indonesia, planned for November this year, and Australian Business Week in the US, which will take place in February 2016. Follow-up missions to China and India are planned for next year. Through our trade agreements and other activities we have opened new markets and improved competitiveness for Australian exporters. This is a message that resonates with foreign investors seeking a safe and secure platform for expansion throughout Asia.
Investors are responding. China's largest private company, New Hope Group, has established a $500 million fund to invest in Australian agriculture. The fund was announced as part of a memorandum of understanding between New Hope Group and Australia's Freedom Foods. It was signed in November 2014 alongside official ceremonies for the signing of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Brazil's JBS is another example with its recent $1.45 billion acquisition of Primo, which will position JBS to utilise Australia's FTAs for the export high-value branded products to Asia, capitalising on the company's global distribution spread. JBS is focused on domestic and international brand development of its beef, lamb and food products. This strategy not only underpins jobs and exports but has delivered higher farm gate returns to its livestock producers. What a change from the laments of the past that we were simply a commodity exporter failing to make the most of our broader strengths. It's happening here, and happening now, because of investment to capitalise on the tremendous growth of middle-class markets on our doorstep in Asia. Since first arriving in Australia in 2007, JBS has invested around $2 billion in strategic acquisitions. It has also expended $700 million in capital and advanced technologies to improve the quality, performance and international competitiveness of its Australian business. It employs some 12,500 Australians full time, of which 8,000 are in regional and rural Australia.
Another great example of the linkages between trade and investment is the recently signed MOU between CP Group—Thailand's largest private company—and South Australia's Thomas Foods. The partnership will build an advanced food processing centre to produce ready-made beef and lamb meals for export across Asia and the world.
Pressing the advantage
Our challenge now is to press the advantage we have earned through all this hard work that went into securing the opening of new markets through the free trade agreements. Despite the successes we have had—and despite the world being awash with cheap money—we will have to work even harder in future.
Since the Global Financial Crisis, business investment has fallen around the developed world. Australia was largely insulated from this because of the investment in our resources sector. Our economy was blessed for 15 years with a mining boom. The peak of the mining investment boom has now passed, as evidenced by recent EIU forecasts indicating that over the next five years Australia's investment inflows will fall. So we need to shift our focus to other traditional strengths, other things we are good at. Things like our agribusiness sector, tourism and hospitality, our health and medical sector and all the services that support them.
Over the long run, notwithstanding the ebbing of the mining investment boom, Australia can return to FDI growth, particularly if we overcome challenges associated with increasing competition from developing countries and the United States. This year, the government has further strengthened trade and investment promotion activities, with an additional $53.2 million commitment. That includes $30 million to increase promotion of foreign direct investment in priority areas, with increased staff and resources for Austrade's global investment teams. Another $18 million will go towards expanding Austrade's Australia Week events in China, India, United States and ASEAN.
We have also overseen major reform of the Significant Investor Visa and Premium Investor Visa programs to foster innovation and commercialisation, within Australia, of our world-leading research and technologies. Ten per cent of the SIV funds will be channelled to venture capital and 30 per cent to funds specialising in emerging companies. This will direct capital to where it has the most impact, and the sort of investment funds flow in prospect could be a game-changer for the funding environment to aid commercialisation of good ideas in our most dynamic, innovative industries.
This government has set out big bold ideas for our economic future, like our plans to open up northern Australia to major private sector investment, holding out the prospect of thousands of new Australian jobs and a revitalised national economy. Many people have talked about the development of northern Australia. But this government is serious about making it a reality. Our Northern Australia Investment Forum to be held in Darwin in November will attract some of the world's key investors and fund managers and shine a spotlight on the immense potential of the North. We will showcase investment-ready opportunities and projects across agriculture, resources and energy, tropical health and medical research, tourism and infrastructure. This is a once-in-a generation opportunity and we need to act now. There are real opportunities which need capital. For example, the $1.5 billion Sea Dragon project involving tiger prawn production in the Northern Territory and Western Australia would make Australia a global leader in aquaculture.
Conclusion
This government is serious when it talks about the importance of attracting investment. What we need to ask ourselves is: who will be the Mitsui or JBS of the future? The answer will help determine how we write the next chapter in our economic history, how we adapt to shifting global patterns of wealth and demand. How we transform our economy to be competitive, as it can be. And, how we ensure that Australia is the easiest and safest place to do business in the world. We know that investment equals Australian jobs, and stronger economic growth for our country. We are deeply committed to taking the steps needed to attract it here, the steps that will set Australia up for a prosperous future. Thank you.
The Minister for Trade and Investment has delivered a very important statement today about the importance of trade and investment. Of course, there is a great deal on which Labor agrees with the minister when it comes to trade and investment. Labor has supported trade liberalisation for decades. We know that it boosts growth, creates jobs, forges more competitive industries and gives consumers greater choice and lower prices. Labor governments have opened up our economy and our society to the world by bringing down postwar tariff barriers; by floating the Australian dollar; by deregulating our banking sector; by pursuing multilateral trade liberalisation; by initiating the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, APEC; by working to bring together G20 leaders to respond to the global financial crisis and by working with that same group on issues like base erosion and profit-shifting and inclusive growth to underpin sustainable economic growth in all of our major economies; and by identifying and embracing the opportunities for Australia in our region by placing the Australia in the Asian Century white paper at the centre of our national debate and opposing protectionist responses to the global financial crisis at home and abroad.
We have done all of that because we support trade and investment. One of the things that is curious about the recent discussion we have had is the mixed messages that the government have sent out in this area. Competitive global trade has contributed to significant, real price reductions for Australian families. We are happy when Australian families need to spend less on their cost of living. Our policies, including trade liberalisation and the opening up of Australia's capital and investment markets, under the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments, have contributed to over two decades of continuous economic growth. So there is much on which we agree with the minister. We know that investment is the lifeblood of any economy. A growing economy needs to attract and generate investment in new businesses and in the expansion of existing businesses. It needs investment in new factories, new buildings, new equipment and new technologies. It needs investment in new products and new production processes, innovation in the kinds of goods and services we produce and innovation in how we produce them. A growing economy needs both private and public investment, because we know that investment today creates the jobs of the future—private investment in entrepreneurial new ideas and business ventures, and public investment in the critical infrastructure that underpins productivity, healthy workers, educated workers, strong and modern transport and communications networks, and high-quality education and health care for our people. That is why we support policies which promote and encourage investment in our people and in our economy, investment in sound macroeconomic management to ensure a stable and growing economy and to encourage business and investor confidence; policies designed to ensure our economy is characterised by competitive, efficient and well-functioning markets, the central role of financial markets in ensuring capital and savings are efficiently channelled into new investment opportunities, and the importance of Australia being an open economy so that we can tap into and take advantage of trade and investment opportunities in the global economy.
We agree with the minister's observations that trade and investment are two sides of the same coin and with his reminder that Australia has historically relied on foreign capital to meet our domestic investment needs and to build growth into our economy. The fact is that Australia's pool of domestic savings is not large enough to adequately fund all of the investment that we need to build and expand our economy. It is one of the very important reasons that Labor developed Australia's superannuation system. It was to increase the pool of domestic savings available for domestic investment and, incidentally, for investment overseas. Superannuation savings helped bring Australia through the Asian financial crisis and through the global financial crisis, because we were less reliant on sources of overseas capital. If Labor's low-income superannuation contribution and our proposed increase in the superannuation rate to 12 per cent had not been abandoned by this government, Australia's national pool of savings in superannuation would be $500 billion higher by 2037 than it will be under the current settings. So we need to supplement our local savings with foreign investment to create the jobs of the future.
We must always ensure that we remain an attractive destination for foreign investment and that we do not impose unnecessary barriers on that inward investment. Foreign investment has always been essential to Australia's economic development, and it is essential to our future prosperity. The National Farmers' Federation has stated, for example, that for Australian agriculture to meet rising demand, investment of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion is needed over the next 35 years.
This government has imposed new barriers to foreign investment in Australian agriculture and agribusiness. A complex regime of differential and discriminatory thresholds for Foreign Investment Review Board screening of proposed investments has been adopted, with no explanation and no foreign policy or economic policy rationale. The investment screening threshold for investors from China, Korea and Japan has been reduced to $15 million. For investors from Singapore and Thailand that threshold is $50 million. For investors from the United States, New Zealand and Chile the threshold is $1,094 million. These new barriers even apply where existing investors seek to make improvements to their property. So the new rules are not just a deterrent to potential new investors but also a disincentive for existing investors to improve their operations.
The government is also proposing to reduce the screening threshold for investments in agribusiness to $55 million—and agribusiness has been so broadly defined that it would include around half of Australia's food manufacturing industry. Again, discriminatory rules will apply, with investors treated differently depending on their country of origin. Investors from China, Korea and Japan will be subject to the new $55 million screening threshold, while investors from the US, New Zealand and Chile will again be subject to a much higher threshold.
In this year's budget the government also announced $735 million in new application fees for foreign investors. That makes Australia one of the very few countries in the world which effectively imposes a tax on inward investment. This government is making Australia a less attractive investment destination. Their changes to foreign investment will make it harder for the agriculture and agribusiness sector to raise capital and will put downward pressure on the value of farm assets. So it is no surprise that these new barriers to and this new red tape on foreign investment have been criticised by the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Queensland Farmers Federation and the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
But it is not just about agriculture and agribusiness. This government has a very mixed record on investment. They rejected ADM's bid for GrainCorp. They have cut funding to leading drivers of tech investment like the CSIRO and NICTA. According to a mining 'best places to invest' index, Australia has slipped from first in the world to second for the first time in about seven years. Australia has also gone from fourth to 10th in the Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index and from No. 4 to No. 37 in the Global Green Economy Index.
Labor supports trade and investment and consequently supports the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because it will drive growth, create jobs and improve living standards. We have been the party of trade liberalisation for decades. We have been the party of Asian engagement for decades. Economic engagement with China has been critical for our growth and will be critical for our future. Unquestionably China has become the dominant economy in our region. That means that there are enormous opportunities for Australia from boosting trade with China. We understand the potential benefits of the China free trade agreement and we have worked hard to bring this agreement into being. So it should be clear to the Australian public where Labor stands on this. We support the best possible free trade agreement with China but we want safeguards for Australian jobs. We want a high-quality free trade agreement that creates high-skill, fair-wage jobs for Australians. For the benefit of those opposite, I repeat what Labor wants to see in the enabling legislation: firstly, mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million, ensuring that Australian workers actually get the first opportunity before overseas workers are brought in on these projects; secondly, an assurance that Australian workplace skills and safety standards will be maintained; and, thirdly, an assurance that Australian wages will not be undercut.
The minister himself has quite rightly said, 'It is not difficult.' It is true: it is not difficult. We want to ensure that the enabling legislation is finetuned so that these elements are delivered on. But the government will do anything rather than sit down at the table and discuss our sensible proposals. We saw last week that they have embarked on a rebranding exercise. We have seen a doubling of the market research budget. 'What is it that people want from their free trade agreements?' you can hear them asking in the groups sitting down around the market research table. They have an extraordinary advertising budget—which I believe, sadly, the minister has been berated for not spending quickly enough before the Canning by-election. And last week we saw the result of this market research and rebranding exercise. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement has been rebranded an 'export agreement'. It is really interesting, because I think this agreement covers both exports and imports and I do not think Australians are silly enough to fall for a simple name change when it comes to their concerns to ensure that the number of high-quality Australian jobs increases under this agreement. This government would rather have a fight than have a conversation about getting the details right. Once again I say: let us give up on the rhetoric and on the sorts of stunts that we saw last week and let us get these safeguards in place for Australian jobs. Let us talk about upholding Australian safety standards, upholding Australian pay and conditions and supporting Australian jobs. That is what is important. Let us get on with it.
Mr Speaker has received advice from the chief government whip nominating changes in the membership of the Standing Committee on the Environment.
by leave—I move:
That:
(a) Mr Hawke be discharged from the Standing Committee on the Environment and that, in his place, Mr Broad be appointed a member of the committee, and
(b) Mr Hawke be appointed a supplementary member of the committee for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report, Report 153: treaties tabled on 16 June 2015 and 23 June 2015.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The report contains the committee's views on three treaty actions, the agreement between Australia and the European Union Establishing a Framework for the Participation of Australia in European Union Crisis Management Operations; The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for People who are Blind, Visually Impaired or otherwise Print Disabled; and·The Ratification of the Decisions of the 2012 Doha Congress of the Universal Postal Union.
The first of these treaty actions is an agreement between Australia and the European Union to allow for Australia's participation in future crisis management actions undertaken by the EU. Australia and the EU have in the past made joint contributions to peace-keeping and peace-building operations. For example, Australia participated in an EU maritime security capacity-building mission for the Horn of Africa.
In the past, each joint activity had to be negotiated separately. Under this agreement, the framework is put in place for Australia to participate in any future operations; making our participation quicker and easier to manage.
This agreement is an important part of improving Australia's bilateral cooperation with the EU on security and development issues. The agreement does not oblige Australia to participate in any particular operation.
Each decision to participate is made on a case-by-case basis. However, the agreement sets out the basic terms and conditions under which Australia's participation would occur.
The second treaty action, the Marrakesh treaty, is intended to make books and other printed materials available in formats accessible to a person with a print disability, while balancing the commercial interests of the copyright holders. Australia's current copyright law has exemptions for creating accessible material.
In Australia, declared organisations are able to legally reproduce copyrighted work in an accessible format. The Marrakesh treaty will create an international framework similar to Australia's current law. Although no domestic legislative changes are needed to implement this treaty, the committee is pleased to note that the legislative amendment is being considered in order to simplify and clarify this area of copyright law.
The third treaty action is in relation to the movement of international mail. The Universal Postal Union is a specialised organisation of the United Nations, which sets the operational rules for international mail. This treaty action makes a number of changes to the way in which international postal organisations agree to work together. This includes improvements to technology, such as processing new materials used in stamp manufacture and enabling the exchange of electronic postal services.
The changes also include definitions of personal data, which make the international postal standards similar to those contained in Australia's domestic privacy legislation.
The committee supports the ratification of these three treaty actions and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on law Enforcement I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2013-14.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010 requires the law enforcement committee to examine the annual report of the Australian Federal Police, pursuant to subsection 7(1).
The report itself is divided into three substantive chapters that examine:
In relation to the AFP's key priorities in 2013-14, the report details various successes of the AFP, including:
This year saw a marked change in the AFP's programs and outcomes, following the streamlining and consolidation of four programs into two. The report contends that the new structure is consistent with whole-of-government reporting changes that provide for streamlined assessment of effectiveness of agencies and departments.
Some other highlights of the report include:
Given other events that are occurring in the building, one might forgive those watching the House of Representatives today if in five minutes time they were to turn to a press conference by the now apparently former Minister for Communications as he announces that he will be challenging the Prime Minister for leadership. In all honesty, I do wish my colleagues on the other side of the House well through what I am sure will be a tumultuous time, those of us on this side of the House being, sadly, all too familiar with these states of affairs.
The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 takes transparency away from the tax system. Transparency matters. It is fundamental to ensuring that all taxpayers pay their fair share. Over a century ago, former Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States said:
Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
It is through high-quality transparency that we can ensure that firms and individuals pay their fair share of tax.
Labor will be opposing this bill because this bill would gut Australia's existing tax transparency laws that were put in place by Labor over the opposition of the coalition in 2013. We did that not from some prurient interest in the tax affairs of Australia's largest companies but in response to growing concern that some big firms are not paying their fair share of tax. Improving transparency is one way of tackling corporate tax avoidance.
We on this side of the House believe that tax transparency is a fundamental part of good multinational tax avoidance laws, and that is why last year I moved a private member's bill to retrospectively apply this transparency measure to the 2012-13 financial year. Labor's view was that transparency needed to start even sooner to make sure we could have a high-quality debate over multinational tax fairness. Unfortunately, the coalition opposed Labor's attempts to have transparency happen sooner.
Right now, as I understand it, the Australian Taxation Office has prepared the information that would allow them to publish information on the income tax paid by companies earning over $100 million a year but they are holding off in following through on that legislative requirement because they are waiting on the outcome of a vote in this parliament. I would urge those crossbench senators still wavering on this point—and for anyone with influence with crossbench senators to tell them—not to gut tax transparency.
The laws currently apply to about 2,000 of Australia's biggest firms, but this government wants to carve out almost half of the companies affected and all of the private companies affected. These are extremely large firms. We are not talking about tiddlywink small businesses; we are talking about significant firms with major presence in the Australian market. They represent less than one per cent of all companies doing business in this country. Labor believes it is appropriate to have tax transparency for our biggest firms and that you should not be able to shield yourself from tax transparency by staying private rather than being public. Labor believes that the threshold should be a revenue threshold, an income threshold, and not whether you are private or public.
It is deeply disappointing that this is the first major piece of tax legislation the government has introduced this year, and, while the Treasurer is talking a big game about minimising multinational tax avoidance, what he has been doing has exactly the opposite effect. When he is outside this House he says he really cares about multinational tax avoidance, but when he is in here he has voted against tax transparency. He voted against Labor's package under Wayne Swan and David Bradbury in 2013 to make multinationals pay their fair share, and now he is moving to gut tax transparency. It is a real case of 'Watch what I do, not what I say.' When we brought forward that bill in 2013, we did so guided by work from the OECD which suggested that Australia's transfer-pricing rules and its anti-avoidance provisions needed to be tightened up to move with some of the sharp accounting practices that some of the world's largest firms were engaged in. David Bradbury won an award that year for being one of the world's 50 most significant tax reformers. That tax reform award was a credit to the work that David Bradbury, along with the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, had done to make sure that Australia's tax laws were up to the minute. We did that alongside the transparency measures because we know that, as Louis Brandeis pointed out, sunlight and reform go together.
I recently submitted a freedom-of-information request to find out just how many people had written to the Treasurer and his offsiders calling for these transparency laws to be changed. 'How many Australians,' I wondered, 'want tax transparency gutted?' See if you can guess how many pensioners and parents, how many community groups and how many small businesses wanted tax transparency to be changed. The answer: zero. Not a single Australian submission has called for the gutting of tax transparency. So the question has to be asked: is this a serious change, a necessary change, or is it the kind of idea that only comes up when you get together with your mates over the second glass of wine at the Melbourne Club? This is not serious reform in the interests of small businesses, pensioners and families; this is hiding from scrutiny the tax affairs of some of Australia's largest firms.
In trying to sell this as something other than shielding their mates from public scrutiny, the Abbott government have cycled through a series of arguments. Let us take a moment to run through the various arguments they have put up in the public domain. Liberal ministers first suggested that we needed to roll back tax transparency because it presented a security risk to the owners of big firms. They dropped that argument pretty quickly when the Treasury, the Australian Taxation Office, the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Federal Police all said they had given no such advice that tax transparency generated a security risk for the individuals involved in managing large firms. Next the government suggested that tax secrecy was fundamental to the integrity of our system. They said that such laws reveal too much information about companies. Some ministers cited the example of Japan, which scaled back its own tax transparency laws for privacy reasons a few years ago.
I agree that confidentiality is an important principle for individual taxpayers and for many businesses. But you have to balance privacy with the public interest. If you are turning over $100 million a year, you are among the most successful firms in Australia. So there is a legitimate public interest in knowing whether firms like these are paying their fair share. A recent Senate inquiry into multinational tax avoidance heard evidence about some companies paying effective tax rates of two per cent or less. These laws make public basic details about the total income, taxable income and tax paid by big firms so that we can better understand the contribution they are really making to Australia.
The Japanese case is a false flag. Where our laws apply to companies earning over $100 million a year, the Japanese threshold was set much, much lower. In today's money it was the equivalent of a threshold of $435,000. That is a very different ruling—to require publication of tax payable by firms that turn over in excess of $435,000 a year. It meant that, while the Australian law captures about 2,000 firms, the Japanese law as originally drafted applied to over 84,000 companies as well as up to 180,000 individual taxpayers. Given that the Japanese threshold was 200 times lower than Australia's, it is pretty disingenuous to suggest that an adjustment to the Japanese threshold somehow suggests that Australia too should adjust its threshold.
Most recently the government has raised the spectre of big supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths squeezing their suppliers in business negotiations if they are able to find out the total income and tax paid by a firm. But does anyone really believe that these large firms do not already have access to detailed financial information about the firms they buy from? I can look up one of several dozen online business databases right now and tell you the annual revenue of dozens of Australian food manufacturers. I would be willing to wager that the big supermarkets have access to far better sources of industry information than I do. If you want to go from income and tax to profits, you have to make some very strong assumptions about deductions. For example, you have to make assumptions about the age of the plant and therefore the eligible depreciation. You could guess at profit from knowing total income and tax paid, but you would be wrong.
The real reason for the roll-back slipped out a few weeks ago, when one of the junior ministers in the Abbott government—as it now is—said that he was worried about unleashing the 'politics of envy' if Australians had access to more information about big companies. And what the member for Kooyong presumably meant when he talked about the 'politics of envy' was that some Australians might be envious of how little tax some of these firms really pay. Some of those who are suffering under the government's cuts might also envy the way the Abbott government always seems to prioritise billionaires over battlers.
Tax transparency matters because, without it, we have no way of knowing if big companies are paying their fair share. There are plenty of big firms that pay their fair share, and their contribution deserves acknowledgement. But, more importantly, it is clear that some firms do not. When companies are paying tax at a fraction of the standard rate, Australians should ask why. At a time when the government is wanting to slug low- and middle-income Australians with a 15 per cent GST, we should look closely at whether all taxpayers are making their fair contribution.
We will not be able to do that if this government gets its way on replacing transparency with secrecy. The consequence is that some companies will be able to get away with ducking their taxes. Every single dollar that gets sent offshore or minimised with a handy loophole is another dollar that cannot be spent on things that matter—things like hospitals, schools and a liveable pension, which have been under sustained attack from the government's budget cuts.
If the government had its priorities right, it would be delivering policies that stop companies shirking their tax. It would be building on the good work engaged in by the member for Lilley, who is in the chamber, and his then Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, on multinational tax avoidance. Those were important reforms for bolstering the Australian tax system, for broadening the base with the possibility that we might ultimately be able to lower the rate.
Labor's multinational tax package was produced in the first half of the parliamentary term. It adds $7.2 billion to the budget bottom lines over the course of the next decade, but the Treasurer does not want a bar of it. He has had the option on the table since Labor announced our package in March. We are happy to sit down with his officials and work through how he can implement it. I agree: it is a great Labor idea, and it is there to be stolen if the government is willing to step up to the plate on multinational tax avoidance.
I do not know why this government is too stubborn to acknowledge a good tax idea when it sees it, but we do know that the issues that Labor's package goes to are important ones. We know that some big companies are transferring money into their Australian arms and dressing it up as a loan when it is really shifting money from one pocket to the other. We know that the problem of using debt to shift profits is a serious one. That is why Labor is proposing moving from the current system, which allows firms to pick their favourite debt deduction rule, to getting rid of the two debt deduction rules that lack economic sense and sticking with the one that does have economic sense: the worldwide gearing ratio. That would allow firms to claim for their Australian operation the average amount of debt they owe to banks around the world. If your multinational group owes a lot to the banks, it can claim a lot back in tax deductions. If it does not owe the banks a cent and instead is just engaging in internal loans, it cannot claim subsidies from the Australian taxpayer—those subsidies which are underpinned by all Australian taxpayers.
The current tax transparency laws, which the Australian Taxation Office will hopefully soon begin to implement, help us hold firms accountable. They help us policymakers and the broader community see where there are problems that need fixing to create a fairer tax system. When organisations such as United Voice and the Tax Justice Network—people like Mark Zirnsak—bring out reports which outline how much tax has been paid by multinationals, based on the publicly available data, then we see members of the government say: 'Oh, you can't trust that. That's based on imperfect information.' But, when Labor try to make sure that we get good information out in the public domain, the government say: 'Oh, no, you can't do that. We've got to stand on the side of secrecy.' They care far more for the feelings of big companies than they do for making sure that we have a strong tax system without loopholes.
The Abbott government should not want to be known as a government which stand up for the megarich against regular Australians. But, if they pursue this attempt to gut tax transparency laws, that is exactly what they will be doing: standing up for the secrecy of large firms against the public interest. I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to keep the current tax transparency laws in place. If they do not, we will fight them in the Senate and at every step of the way. We call on those community groups who care about multinational tax fairness and about tax transparency to join us in a conversation with Senate crossbenchers about blocking this bad bill. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because tackling tax avoidance demands more transparency, not less."
Is the amendment seconded? The honourable member for Lilley is seconding the amendment?
Yes, I am.
Thank you. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I also rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 and to follow the remarks of the shadow Assistant Treasurer. In 2013, Labor passed legislation that required the tax commissioner to publish the total income, taxable income and income tax payable of all entities with an annual turnover of $100 million or more. The current bill seeks to carve out Australian owned private companies from the disclosure of taxpayer information. This is an indicator of what lengths this government will go to to avoid ensuring that the integrity of our progressive tax system is maintained.
The Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance has exposed the extent to which a large number of multinationals have evaded or aggressively minimised their tax obligations in Australia. In conjunction with investigative reporting of the highest calibre by some of this country's top journalists, and the diligent and tenacious public service of Australian taxation officers, the inquiry has drawn attention to the legally questionable and ethically bankrupt tax practices of some of Australia's most senior corporate citizens.
Tax avoidance on such a grand scale impoverishes us all. When some companies fail to pay their fair share of tax, revenue must be found elsewhere, either from businesses, particularly SMEs, who already obey Australia's tax laws or from individual taxpayers who already pay direct and indirect tax, including the regressive goods and services tax. The billions of dollars of tax that multinationals avoid hold back billions of dollars in health, education and infrastructure investment and are being used to argue for a higher GST, which is thrust on an unwilling public. When multinationals avoid their tax obligations, one way or the other, the Australian people pay. Similarly, when some of our largest companies are so audacious in avoiding tax, it gives the green light for others to have a go as well. Surely this is not the type of corporate leadership they would want to be known for. In coming months the Senate inquiry will finalise its report. The reputations of those who have engaged in aggressive tax avoidance, of those who have provided advice and of the boards that have approved the practices are on the line. Corporations are not ends in themselves. The corporate veil should not hide the moral responsibility of those that run them and the decisions taken in their name.
Today I speak not to bury tax-avoiding corporations but to beseech them. It is not my intention to apportion blame to individuals, but to highlight the practices which ravage our revenues and breach the fundamental trust so essential to the working of a modern, inclusive and prosperous economy. To the tax avoiders I say: 'Your transgressions have damaged your standing in the community, but your exposure provides an opportunity for redemption. Be true to the values you espouse in your charters of corporate responsibility. Be transparent with your shareholders and with the Australian people about your tax liabilities, and then, perhaps, you can again be trusted by taxpayers and their governments that you too are fulfilling your social and legal obligations in Australia. Only then will your commentary on reform, particularly tax reform, be taken seriously.'
As many prominent business leaders have said to me, there is a stark contrast between the esteem in which the boards of many of these companies expect to be held and their actual behaviour. That is why this bill is such a backwards step. In seeking to roll back tax transparency it normalises tax avoidance and damages the good name of corporate citizens who do the right thing and who pay their fair share. Before considering how tax avoiding corporations can restore their reputations and join the many Australian companies who pay their fair share of tax, it is worth examining the scope of the tax avoidance problem.
Virtually every industry has its share of tax avoiders, from pharmaceuticals to media, technology and oil and gas companies, but I would like to focus on the practices of Australia's two big miners: BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Over the past decade these companies have treated the Australian tax system and the Australian people with contempt, whether by blatantly inflating the impact of the MRRT on their operations while funnelling their profits through foreign tax havens or by pleading for a reduction in company tax despite paying effectively half the rate faced by honest Australian businesses.
One recurring falsehood perpetuated by the miners and the Minerals Council during our time in government which has persisted to this day is that the industry is subject to a tax rate of around 50 per cent. This is false. The hearings of the Senate inquiry also demonstrate that as our government negotiated with the miners on critical tax issues mining companies were, behind our backs, expanding their tax avoidance regimes. At the same time, aided by the Minerals Council, the miners launched an advertising campaign to perpetuate the falsehood that their industry faced an effective tax rate of around 50 per cent. Mining companies never paid anything close to the tax rate claimed by the Minerals Council. While the corporate sector paid an average of 25 per cent tax as a share of profits between 2008-09 and 2013-14, the mining industry paid just 15c in every dollar. Courtesy of deductions flowing from the very royalties they were railing against, as well as accelerated depreciation rates, miners paid tax at effectively one-third the rate claimed by the Minerals Council, and this was only on the profits that they were not shifting offshore.
The duplicity and hypocrisy of multinationals, who cry poor while dodging their tax obligations in Australia, has been laid bare by the Senate inquiry. The committee's work has been supported by the diligent public service of Australian taxation officers and complemented by the tenacious investigative journalism of Neil Chenoweth for The AFR and Michael West for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. The tax practices of miners and other multinationals are varied and often very complex, but their cost to the tax system and the injustice they perpetrate upon the Australian people can no longer be ignored.
Today I would like to draw attention to some of the schemes which have tarred BHP and Rio as tax avoiders, but which their boards now have the opportunity to rectify. Transfer pricing occurs when a company sells a product between two arms of its operation in order to book its profits in a lower tax jurisdiction. One of these arms might be a controlled foreign company, partly or fully owned by a domestic operation and therefore obliged to pay some domestic tax. Between 2006 and 2014, the Australian arm of BHP Billiton sold minerals to its Singapore marketing hub, which then onsold them to China, imposing a mark-up in the process. After costs, including shipping costs it paid to its own freight company, BHP's Singapore hub has booked at least $5.7 billion in profits through Singapore since 2006. While BHP Billiton was obliged to pay top up taxes of $945 million to the ATO, this tax only applied to the 58 per cent share of the Singapore arm owned by BHP Billiton Australia. Overall, the tax paid by BHP represents only 10 to 12 per cent of its total profits, made almost exclusively by selling Australian resources. While BHP maintains that its Singapore operations are at arms-length from its Australian branch, I make the simple point that the directors of both the UK and the Australian entities that control the Singapore hub are the same people. This situation is clearly an artifice.
Like BHP, Rio Tinto has established a string of controlled foreign companies in Singapore. Between 2008 and 2014, Rio's companies earned $4.5 billion in profits by onselling minerals from its Australian operation at an inflated mark-up. This profit, taxed at five per cent in Singapore, was wholly submitted to Rio's holding company in the UK and not once cent of tax was paid on the $4.5 billion in Australia—not one cent.
BHP and Rio have yet to explain to their shareholders and the Australian people the true extent of their tax liabilities. After its taciturn performance at the Senate inquiry, BHP was forced to concede that the ATO had billed it for another $522 million in top-up taxes. Rio also admitted that it was obliged to pay $107 million to resolve outstanding ATO claims. In addition, for years these companies have sat on material disputes with the ATO and progressively taken up provisions through time so that they could pay the eventual bill without having to disclose it in any single year. This attitude thumbs its nose at the continuous disclosure laws demanded of every Australian listed company.
Forensic investigation of the BHP and Rio accounts has revealed that both companies began to pay withholding tax from 2011. These taxes are likely to have been levied by the ATO for profits made on Australian operations, exposing an additional loophole that the miners were exploiting. This finding is damning for the management of BHP and Rio during 2010. If these withholding taxes were levied by the ATO, it is likely that BHP and Rio were being audited and tax evasion disputes were being settled out of public view. This was at the same time as the miners had the audacity to complain about the high rate of taxes that they were not even paying during the debate around the MRRT.
Part of the motivation for BHP and Rio's questionable tax practices lies in their dual-listed structure. Both companies are partly owned by Australian and UK parents and under the dual-listing rules must pay equal dividends to shareholders in each jurisdiction. Thanks to the mining boom, the Australian parent of each company has performed exceptionally well, but, due to poor investments overseas, the performance of the UK arms has been dismal. In order to equalise dividend payments across jurisdictions, BHP and Rio have to remit an appropriate share of the profits from the Australian operations to the UK. With the intervention of their Singapore marketing hubs, both companies have avoided paying their fair share of tax in Australia, where the economic activities generating these profits takes place.
BHP and Rio have obvious incentives to aggressively minimise their tax obligations in Australia. When company executives are remunerated according to the outperformance of their shares relative to the market, any practices which maximise market share, dividends and boost share prices would appear to satisfy executives and shareholders alike. That BHP and Rio have stretched Australia's tax laws is undeniable. The impact of their aggressive minimisation is yet to be fully realised, but they are part of a scourge which has seen tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue funnelled out of Australia over the past decade. Despite this, the findings of the Senate inquiry give these companies a chance to come clean, reform their practices and re-join the majority of Australian businesses who pay their fair share of tax in Australia.
It is legislation like this that shows the Liberals are all about shifting the tax burden away from corporations and onto working families. And fighting legislation like this is one of my driving motivations for remaining in this place. The fight for a more prosperous and inclusive Australia depends so much on the decisions we take in reforming our tax system. We must have a tax system that rewards the hard work of millions through a progressive personal tax and transfer payment system, one that drives investment and encourages enterprise through a competitive and enforceable company tax regime and ensures that we make the most of the opportunities that arise in the Asian Century. I know as a consequence of these remarks today I will be targeted by those who have profited enormously from these loopholes and shady practices. I say to them this will not deter me from arguing for a tax system which is in the national interest.
We must have a tax system which nurtures a modern market economy, where the light is shone on the power of vested interest and their power to influence public policy is kept in check. The challenge of cleaning up the corporate tax minimisation is being constantly camouflaged by those who will go to any lengths to impose a higher and broader GST on the Australian population. That is not reform or wealth creation; it is a recipe for lower growth and higher wealth concentration, and that is why ordinary Australians will never accept it.
The GST hits everybody, but its incidence is particularly acute for households on low and fixed incomes. After compensation is paid to these households, historical experience shows that governments collect a lot less taxation revenue than they anticipate. In fact, the original GST package introduced by Treasurer Costello ended up costing the government $21 billion after compensation was paid.
I say to the coalition, stop thinking about campaign donations and give ordinary taxpayers the respect they deserve by ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax.
I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 and on the very sensible and worthy amendment of the member for Fraser. The current bill, as it stands, I think, is basically punitive, illogical and emotion driven. It is out of the politics of envy type of thinking targeted at people and companies, private companies, who are successful. It also does not actually raise any extra taxation funds but it just reflects the politics of envy and a desire to name and shame individuals for doing what every company tries to do—that is, be successful and make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word but it seems like there is a sentiment behind this legislation we are attempting to amend that will fix everything by naming and shaming.
At the moment, private companies, once they reach an income of $100 billion, supply their private information to the Australian tax office and it becomes public. Total income, net income after costs and income tax payable being published for individual private companies is the current status. This legislation invades those private companies' sensitive personal business information. It lets their competitors know very important information. Public companies currently have all that reporting in their company statements. This is not addressing public companies; this is addressing private companies. That is why people keep them private because there are some people who want to maintain their privacy. There is nothing new that they have to report to the tax office—that goes without saying—all companies have to do that. But what is the point of publicly naming their income, their costs and all their business things to the general public? I just cannot see the point of it—this idea that by naming and shaming people, you will get more tax out of them.
If you are a private company, you have to be operating and governanced in Australia. The regulation of the company has to be within Australia so all the reporting is made to the tax office. Everyone is aware of thin capitalisation, transfer pricing, marketing hubs and the transferring of payments that the member for Lilley just spoke about, but that is not what this legislation is all about. This is about invading private citizens' information, which is given in confidence to the tax department—correctly given to them—and it changes the principle that has been around for over 70 years. If you are a holding company or a company that is controlled offshore, this does not excuse you. If you are an overseas controlled entity, you still have to report. This information can become public, but this is about Australian citizens and I think it is an offence that we have it. This amendment will address an essential issue of privacy for hardworking Australians.
Thank you, Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta; just to get the order back on track. It is with pleasure I stand to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
It is good to see my good friend the member for Rankin, as usual, contributing to the debate. On 4 June 2015, the government released exposure draft legislation for comment that would exclude Australian private owned companies from the ATO's obligation to publicly disclose certain taxpayer information. This legislation was originally introduced by those opposite and was opposed by the coalition when we were in opposition. It requires the ATO, from later this year, to publicly disclose information about all companies with a total income of $100 million or more. This legislation ignores the key concerns of key stakeholders and will have damaging commercial and reputational ramifications for the individuals and companies involved.
The previous Labor government's legislation would not have resulted in the ATO raising any additional revenue, as taxpayers must already provide the ATO with all the information relevant to making an assessment of their tax liability. If unamended, the current legislation, potentially presents significant risks to Australians by undermining taxpayer confidentiality and by exposing companies to greater commercial and security risk. Under the previous government's laws, towards the end of this year the ATO would have had to release the company's name and ABN, its total income, its taxable income and its tax payable. All this information published would be sourced from the entity's tax returns. One of the great things about our tax system for a private company or a private individual is the notion of confidentiality. This is central to the government's concerns about the existing legislation and one of the reasons we opposed it when we were in opposition.
This measure has the potential to undermine the confidentiality of taxpayer information, a fundamental tenant of Australia's tax system. As noted by the coalition in the Senate Economics Committee dissenting report:
Confidentiality of taxpayer information is fundamental to the administration of taxation law. Confidentiality is protected because ensuring the privacy of sensitive information, including commercial information, goes to public confidence in the administration of taxation law.
This is an issue that several Labor members have highlighted previously yet failed to apply in these particular circumstances. The honourable Leader of the Opposition in 2010 said:
The inconsistencies and ambiguities associated with the existing law have the potential to undermine its primary purpose—that is, to provide clear protection for taxpayer information. The taxation law has long recognised that such protection is fundamental to ensuring that taxpayers maintain their confidence in the operation of the tax system.
The importance of taxpayer confidentiality is reinforced by the OECD in Keeping it safe: the OECD guide on the protection of confidentiality of information exchanged for tax purposes. It says:
… taxpayers need to have confidence that the often sensitive financial information is not disclosed inappropriately …
Secondly, there is the issue of commercial risk. It has the potential to provide competitors, suppliers and upstream purchasers of goods or services of private companies with sensitive commercial information. As noted by the Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan:
I think if you look at the history of the matter, it was really for multinational companies operating here, disclosing quite low revenue …
All of us in this place would support the notion that it is important that companies and individuals across our country pay the appropriate levels of tax.
There is also an issue around personal and reputational safety concerns. During Labor's consultations in 2013, business stakeholders expressed the concern that the measure posed a risk to compliant taxpayers being unfairly targeted by activists and having their reputation tarnished. As the chairman and CEO of Godfrey Hirst Australia, Australia's largest carpet manufacturer, noted:
By publishing extremely limited information selected specifically to put the targeted taxpayers in the worst possible light, it invites (incites) public action against the target taxpayers and potentially those associated with them. There are national and international examples of such actions against companies involving physical damage, reputational damage and commercial boycotts.
A similar disclosure regime was also abandoned in Japan in 2005 after a recommendation from the Japanese Tax Advisory Commission, which found that there were 'various reports of the disclosure being a factor in causing crimes and harassment'.
Another issue is the effectiveness of the law. Around this, the government also has several concerns regarding the incomplete nature of the information. It ignores the fact that personal income tax is payable on the company's after-tax profits by its shareholders, who are often on the top marginal rate of 49 per cent. The information published is incomplete and misleading as it omits any reference to other taxes that private companies must pay, including the array of state taxes, fees and charges—from payroll tax to stamp duties and land tax, to local rates and charges, as well as federal fuel tax and levies. The publication of this information to a wider audience will not in any way enhance the ability of Australia's taxation authorities to collect additional revenue.
The 2015-16 budget also looked at the issue of multinational tax avoidance and produced a package including a range of domestic elements, including doubling penalties for large companies engaging in tax avoidance and profit shifting. The government is also actioning four key 2014 G20/OECD base erosion and profit shifting recommendations, including: implementing the OECD's country-by-country reporting from 1 January 2016, requiring multinational companies to report the amount of revenue, profit, income tax and economic activity annually for each jurisdiction in which they do business. Also, we are looking at incorporating the OECD's treaty abuse rules into our treaty practice. We are asking the Board of Taxation to consult on the implementation of the OECD's antihybrid rules. Importantly, we are commencing the exchange of information on preferential tax rulings through the ATO.
Country-by-country reporting to tax administrations will require large multinationals to report annually for each jurisdiction in which they do business the amount of revenue, profit, income tax and economic activity. For the first time, tax administrations will get a global picture of multinationals' operations. This is a significant step in improving transparency for tax administrations.
Every company that operates in Australia, whether private, public or multinational, is expected to meet their tax obligations. I am proud of our government's action on tax transparency. This government is committed to combatting tax avoidance, through the implementation of well-considered and balanced measures.
I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I am pleased that the Labor Party is supporting transparency for Australian companies regarding their taxation arrangements. This stands in stark contrast to the pathetic and chaotic coalition government who as always are governing in the interests of a wealthy minority. I hazard to predict they may be electing one of those wealthy minorities as the next Prime Minister of the country in the next 24 hours.
The priority of this government is to ensure the interests of this minority are satisfied, and this bill represents a genuflection to the coalition's true masters. Working families are not a priority for this government. Pensioners are not a priority for this government. Growing the economy and employment is not a priority. Investing in education and skills to ensure our future prosperity is not a priority. Ensuring we have great health and disability insurance systems is not a priority. This bill demonstrates again that the priority for the Liberal and National parties is whatever a few wealthy Australians Australia want. This legislation should not pass, as it lessens the improved transparency introduced by the previous Labor government.
The current Prime Minister declared on election night 2013 that Australia was 'open for business'. We know now that he meant that quite literally, and this legislation is clear evidence of a government governing on behalf of a wealthy minority, with no interest in the concerns and aspirations of the of tens of millions of working Australian's that should be their first priority.
Before addressing the flaws in this disgraceful bill, I want to draw to the attention of the House the proud record of the Labor Party in tackling tax avoidance when we were in government. In government we closed loopholes in Australia's transfer pricing rules and antiavoidance provisions. The coalition voted against this. We cracked down on companies overvaluing assets in international transactions. The coalition voted against this. We signed 28 bilateral information sharing agreements with other nation's tax agencies. The tax commissioner has said that better information-sharing with other countries about multinational companies resulted in $730 million in additional tax being collected between 2012 and 2014.
We provided the ATO with $109 million to establish a specific audit program looking at the use of marketing hubs. This program has already resulted in 13 companies being given revised tax bills, worth $250 million. And I want to proudly associate myself with the comments from the member for Lilley regarding the use of marketing hubs in his contribution on this debate.
We amended the Taxation Administration Act to require the ATO to publish information regarding the income, taxable income and tax paid by companies earning over $100 million from 1 July 2015. This is a very substantial record of tackling tax avoidance. Our record should be compared to the government's regarding tax avoidance. One of the very first acts of the Abbott government was to reopen offshore loopholes worth $1.1 billion.
The measure we are debating, regarding the publishing of information regarding the tax that companies pay, was intended to discourage aggressive tax practices, to better inform public debate about tax policy and to assist in combatting the risk of erosion of profit sharing. If this bill does not pass, the first publication of this information based on the 2013-14 financial year will occur later this year.
The current system covers about 2,000 of Australia's largest companies. In this bill the government is seeking to limit the scope so that the laws no longer apply to Australian-owned private companies. It would be interesting to know how many of those companies are Liberal Party donors.
The laws will continue to apply to multinational companies operating in Australia and to Australian public companies. This bill will exclude companies earning more than $100 million from the transparency provisions if the firm is an Australian resident private company, is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign corporate group and does not have a level of foreign shareholding greater than 50 per cent. Companies that are not corporate tax entities or that report a total income of less than $100 million for an income year will continue to be outside the operation of these laws.
The bill must be opposed because this parliament should not be limiting transparency and the ability of Australians to access information about large and powerful corporations. It is a damning indictment on this government that they are seeking to limit this transparency. There is a very clear distinction between the Labor Party and the coalition: the Labor Party stands for transparency and the coalition stands for secrecy. It is not in the interests of the Australian taxpayers to limit transparency in the area of corporate taxation. The excuses we have heard from the government for why they are doing this are ridiculous. Apparently it is to reduce the risk of kidnapping of wealthy individuals, yet not a single request has been made to the government for this action. An FOI lodged by the Labor opposition revealed not a single communication to the government from a high-wealth individual or from someone who owned an Australian private company saying, 'Please change this law because we are at risk of being kidnapped.' It is a complete furphy designed to reduce the transparency in the Australian taxation system. My question is: what do the coalition have to hide? What do they have to hide in preventing the Australian people from knowing what companies with incomes over $100 million are paying in tax? What is so wrong with that information being out in the public arena?
As I have said previously, this bill tells us what the priorities of the Australian government are. In the area of taxation the government's priority is to limit transparency. The current Treasurer—and he may be Treasurer for less than 12 hours, so it would probably be more accurate to describe him as 'the Treasurer for the time being'—has talked tough on multinational tax avoidance for a long time now. I would have thought cracking down on multinational tax avoidance was a far greater priority than cracking down on corporate transparency—but not for this government. This bill sends a very clear message: 'We are looking after our corporate mates and we have no interest in sensible and rational tax policy.'
Over the last 12 months, through a Senate economics committee investigation, we have seen some very disturbing information about the taxation practices of multinational corporations in this country. I would submit that, if this government were intent on raising revenue and intent on increasing the efficiency and equity of the taxation system, then that is where they should be directing their efforts, rather than attempting to reduce transparency in the taxation system. Unfortunately, throughout history the coalition governments—and the Liberal Party in particular—have deep form on this. Let us not forget that in the 1970s they turned a blind eye to the bottom-of-the-harbour tax avoidance schemes that were rife in the late seventies and early eighties. Those schemes robbed the Australian government of millions, if not billions, of dollars of rightful taxation revenue that the Fraser government did nothing about. It is perhaps ironic that a royal commission into a corrupt trade union—and let us be frank about it, the painters and dockers were corrupt—was the only way we found out about the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes and the illicit activities of so many tax evaders in Australia. The Fraser government was very happy for those tax evaders to continue in their tax evasion until the Costigan royal commission meant they could no longer look the other way.
Then we look at the eighties, which was the golden era of economic reform when the Labor government introduced the capital gains tax—a very important taxation reform. Much to the chagrin of the Liberal Party, this tax was implemented successfully and was opposed by the coalition, by the Liberal Party, by people like John Howard. Former Prime Minister Howard likes to rewrite history and say that somehow he agreed with every sound economic measure around taxation and every other economic policy in the 1980s, but let us not forget that he opposed these very important reforms. Capital gains taxation was brought in over the bodies of the Liberal Party, yet they now try to claim that they were part of some bipartisan reform agenda in the 1980s. They were not. Their record on taxation is appalling: they are happy to turn a blind eye on tax evasion and tax avoidance, they are happy to oppose sensible taxation measures that raise revenue from people who can afford to pay more tax and they are happy to introduce concessions—let us not forget that when the GST was introduced in 1999 they halved the capital gains tax applying for assets held for more than a year. The coalition government have form on reducing the tax burden on wealthy Australians at the expense of average taxpayers in this country.
We are in a period where inequality is at a 75-year high. We should be looking at ways of making the taxation system more efficient and also more progressive. We need to use the taxation system to tackle that inequality, to raise revenue to fund the much-needed services that a Commonwealth government should be funding and to fund important programs to stimulate economic growth in this period when we have a jobs crisis. But all we have on the other side is a plan to reduce transparency in the taxation system, to let private companies that pay more than $100 million in tax not have to disclose information that is pertinent to their records.
An open and transparent system of corporate tax disclosure is necessary for Australians to have confidence in the tax system and to encourage corporate best practice. This bill seeks to narrow the scope of corporate tax disclosure, and the government is to be condemned for attempting to limit the amount of information Australians can access. Labor hopes that the Senate crossbench will join with us on the side of transparency against this shameful attempt to limit the information available to citizens about our largest companies. The bill is a damning indictment and a clear illustration that the Abbott government is on the side of big business and ignores the interests of working Australians. No matter what happens over the next 24 hours with the chaos in the Liberal party room, no matter whether we still have Prime Minister Abbott in 24 hours or—as is more likely—Prime Minister Turnbull, no matter who is Prime Minister, if they are leading a coalition government, rest assured they will be on the side of the wealthy minority. They will be on the side of those who want to not disclose what tax they pay. They will be on the side of those who want to minimise the tax they pay in this country, because their interests are not the interests of the vast majority of Australians. Their interests are the interests of a wealthy minority and, no matter who leads them, that is the story that is there. That is the truth undermining the coalition government, and that is why ultimately they will be defeated.
It is my honour and privilege to follow the member for Charlton and the member for Lilley in speaking on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015. I think it says it all about this government in this bill. We have a really neat encapsulation of what this government is on about when you consider this bill. It is out there cracking down on the weakest people in our society, in our community and in the labour market at the same time as it wants to make it open slather for the wealthiest people.
It also says something about the government that they say one thing about corporate tax avoidance at the same time as their actions head in exactly the opposite direction. That is not the first time that has happened in the life of this government. They puff themselves up at the G20 and they say they are going to crack down on tax avoidance at the same time as, in their first mid-year budget update, they reopen $1.1 billion in tax loopholes for some of the biggest companies that operate in Australia. They ask the Commissioner of Taxation to 'double his efforts' on tax avoidance at the same time as they sack 4,700 people from the ATO, including about 1,000 auditors. To cap things off, the Treasurer said, 'Supporting greater tax transparency and information exchange is our best weapon to crack down on tax avoidance,' and today they seek to repeal some key elements of Labor's tax transparency laws. This bill is part of the Liberal Party's campaign to make tax evasion easier for the wealthiest people in our country, at the expense of fairness for everybody else in the tax system.
One fundamental principle of Australia's egalitarian society, as the member for Charlton and the member for Lilley mentioned, is that we should all pay our fair share of tax. This includes all workers and regular taxpayers, but it should also extend to include our businesses and our corporations. Companies should pay their fair share to fund the services, the infrastructure and the legal privileges that they benefit from and that our First World, first-rate economy, in a society like ours, has a right to expect. There are two other important benefits, of course of corporate tax. Firstly, it holds the tax system together; without it, people are more likely to stash their personal income in corporate structures to escape tax. Secondly, it helps to curb inequality, to make sure that the wealthiest in our society pay tax on their income.
Corporate income tax in Australia is at 30 per cent. That is about the middle of the field when it comes to the OECD, but it is below our major competitors, including the US and Japan. Over 850,000 Australian companies lodged a tax return in 2012-13. They paid $67 billion in company tax. This represents about 19 per cent of the total federal tax receipts. So it should go without saying that corporate income tax is an important part of government revenue and an important part of maintaining fairness in the tax system.
Just as in the personal income tax system, corporations are entitled to various legitimate deductions relating to business operations, including things like costs incurred in supplying goods and services, interest payments on borrowed money, depreciation of capital goods, and research and development expenses. That is all fine. There are a whole lot of legitimate deductions to tax expenses, recognising the costs of doing business in Australia and the benefits to the wider economy of businesses operating here.
Unfortunately it is the case, and it has been proven to be the case, that some companies engage in 'aggressive tax minimisation', or even avoidance, to lower or abolish their tax bill. This is often done using less legitimate or questionable deductions against their tax liability, many of which lie in a legal grey area in Australia's tax system. The Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance, led by my friend Senator Dastyari, has uncovered several very questionable corporate tax minimisation cases involving prominent companies operating in Australia. These examples are now well documented. I do not intend to go through all of them, but they show that clearly the current tax system in Australia makes it possible for some of the highest-earning businesses in the country to pay very little tax here, and it is not just a few isolated examples either.
Across the ASX 200, the Tax Justice Network found that the effective tax rate on corporate income was just 23 per cent, compared to the headline rate of 30 per cent. They also found that over the last five years the proportion of income tax from business shrank from 23 per cent to 19 per cent, while the proportion from individuals rose from 37 per cent to 39 per cent. So you can see a shift in the tax base in this country. In other words, the Australian corporate tax base is at risk. It is shrinking while the personal income tax base is growing, and at the same time as the corporate tax base is at risk so too is the Australian people's faith in the fairness of our tax system.
Another important consideration, particularly in our region, is the impact of systematic corporate tax avoidance on other nations. International competition can lead to a race to the bottom on corporate tax, an increase in tax loopholes for international income, and a corresponding decrease in fairness. The IMF has estimated in a paper entitled 'Spillovers in international corporate taxation' that revenue lost in this way from non-OECD countries—so, broadly, the developing world—is about 12 percent of their total corporate income tax revenue. The impact of this on revenue is not a zero-sum game. Some countries gain, but the aggregate effect is a loss, with devastating consequences for our brothers and sisters in developing countries. They are shouldering much of the burden, while a few advanced economies—but certainly not Australia—gouge the gains.
For all these reasons, the political appetite for action on corporate tax avoidance has increased over the past few years, and this is a welcome development. The think tank Per Capita had a 2015 tax survey that found that two-thirds of people in Australia think the best way to raise new taxes for public spending is to crack down on corporate tax avoidance. More than 80 per cent of people believe that corporate tax avoidance affects the fairness of our taxation system. So this is a real issue of concern for most Australians, and it should be a priority issue for this parliament as well.
The Assistant Treasurer in the last Labor government, the great man David Bradbury, is now working at the OECD on some of these matters. With the member for Lilley and the current shadow Treasurer, he did some terrific work in this area—some very courageous work, very intelligent work, characteristically for him. He made such a great contribution in this place. With his urging, and in conjunction with other colleagues, we delivered a whole raft of initiatives in this space. We delivered the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013, which closed loopholes in our transfer-pricing rules. The Abbott coalition, of course, voted against that bill. We amended the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to require the ATO, from 1 July 2015, to publish information about the income and tax paid of companies earning over $100 million. The Abbott coalition voted against that change as well. We passed the Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012, which cracked down on companies overvaluing assets in international transactions to distort the tax paid. The Abbott coalition voted against that bill as well. The list goes on of the initiatives that we have taken in this space—28 bilateral information-sharing agreements, and other initiatives that netted something like $730 million in additional tax that would have otherwise been avoided between 2012 and 2014. We invested in the tax office to set up a specific audit program to look at the use of offshore marketing hubs. That has already paid dividends. That $109 million invested netted something like $250 million in extra tax that would have otherwise been avoided. I pay tribute to the Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan, and the work that the ATO can do when we invest in them, give them a job to do and properly resource them for that job.
We have made it clear throughout that we believe big companies should pay their fair share of tax. We have a good track record on all these issues. Since coming to government, the Liberals have taken Australia backwards on corporate tax avoidance. They reopened that $1.1 billion loophole that I mentioned earlier. They cut funding to the tax office and they made very weak changes to the general antiavoidance rules in the last budget. Their amendments were so pathetic that the Treasury could not even cost their impact on the system, so vague were they in that most recent initiative.
The bill we are discussing now is of a piece with other actions of the government—another backward step, reducing corporate tax avoidance. It removes Labor legislation which requires the tax office to publish information about the income and tax paid of companies earning over $100 million a year. The laws currently apply to about 2,000 of Australia's biggest firms, but the government wants to carve out private firms, which make up almost half the companies affected, so it is a really serious attack on the integrity of the original bill and its purpose. The result will be less transparency for Australian taxpayers. The Australian public deserve to know just how much tax our biggest companies operating in Australia actually pay. The overwhelming number of companies who are doing the right thing in this country and creating jobs in our communities right around Australia have nothing to fear from more transparency and more accountability. Other countries are going down this path. Some already have good laws in place; others are writing those laws and designing those laws now.
We had, of course, as the member for Charlton said, all kinds of excuse making from the Assistant Treasurer about the 'politics of envy' and how people would be kidnapped and all this sort of rubbish, which has been subsequently shown as a complete con, a complete smokescreen, to get in the way of the very sensible, very reasonable initiative encapsulated in the Labor bill and being walked back in this legislation that we are discussing today.
If Australian companies are doing the wrong thing and not paying their fair share of tax, it is a very simple proposition from our side. The Australian people deserve to know if and when they are being cheated. Greater tax transparency is one of the fundamental components of the OECD's response to base erosion and profit-shifting, which Australia has signed up to. Greater transparency can help reassure Australians when the tax system is working and can help identify areas where the tax system is not meeting public expectations. What we know from their position on this bill, and overall, is that those opposite are not interested in a fairer, more effective tax system; they are more interested in helping the biggest companies keep secret how little tax they often pay.
In contrast, Labor has a clear policy in response to corporate tax avoidance. First of all, we are opposing this legislation which makes the tax system less transparent and less fair. But we have also released some very detailed plans, worked up in consultation with experts—tax accountants, academics and others. I commend the member for Watson and the member for Fraser for the work they have done. There are four key components in the policy that we have announced, well in advance of an election: a worldwide gearing ratio based on the company's entire global operations; hybrid mismatching, which is standardising our law with other countries so companies cannot double-dip; increased ATO compliance, providing effective funding to the ATO to have the resources to improve compliance; and third-party data matching, which starts the third-party reporting and data matching early to improve compliance among our companies.
We believe that this strategy would earn the budget more than $500 million a year in the budget and raise at least $1.9 billion in its first three years of operation. In addition to the fiscal benefits that the nation would get from ensuring that people are paying their fair share, it would improve the overall fairness of Australia's tax system. It would help people to have the confidence that we want them to have that the tax system treats them in a fair way—so that we are funding the services and the infrastructure that the country needs if it is to grow in a sustainable way.
Labor believes that we need to do more to counter corporate tax avoidance, not less, and that is why I follow the member for Charlton and the member for Lilley in speaking against the passage of this bill.
In the two years the coalition have been in government, we have had the enormous job of cleaning up Labor's mess—mess that damaged the economic prosperity of this country, suppressed job growth and retarded wealth creation. We have repealed the carbon tax—something they said would not and could not be done. We have done the same with the mining tax—something they said would not and could not be done. We have restored integrity to the borders of this nation. We have put the people smugglers out of business—something, again, they said would not and could not be done. We have also fixed the shameful unclaimed moneys legislation whereby kids' bank accounts that had no deposit or withdrawal for 36 months were confiscated and taken by the government. We have also repealed enormous quantities of red tape. In Sydney, my home city, after decades of indecision we have made the decision on where Sydney's second airport will be—which will actually be the first airport for Western Sydney. We have made that decision. And we are getting on with starting to build the roads of the 21st century. We are winding back the deficit, despite the fact that over in the Senate they try to block every piece of sensible legislation we put through. These are the achievements that we have had in the last two years.
With the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 we are doing exactly the same thing: cleaning up the mess that the Labor Party created. Back in June 2003 amidst the chaos and confusion in the dying days of the previous Labor government, they legislated an amendment which would require the Commissioner of Taxation to publish—publicly—the taxation records of all private companies with $100 million in turnover. Private companies are private for a reason. The previous Labor government legislated that they must declare all that information publicly. What for? What were they trying to achieve? This money is all recorded by the Taxation Office. There is no argument that these companies have not paid the correct amount of tax; that is done by the Taxation Office. It is simply a policy of envy—an attack on the integrity of these companies.
Why is this so detrimental to our nation, and why do we need to change it? The first reason is that it has always been a fundamental principle of our nation and our laws that a private individual's affairs with the Taxation Office are kept confidential. If you require private companies to declare their taxation records, you are in effect requiring private individuals to publish their private tax affairs. This is simply contrary to all good taxation policy. But that is what the previous Labor government wanted to do. There is some urgency in this legislation, because the first of these records would have been published by November 2015.
The second reason why you cannot have private companies having to publicly declare their taxation records is commercial risk. There are a few reasons for this. In this country recently, because of our concentrated markets—because the failure of our competition law has allowed market sector after market sector to become overly concentrated—we have seen many large companies misuse their bargaining power. We saw it recently with the Coles supermarket chain when it demanded payment from suppliers that it was not entitled to by threatening harm to suppliers that did not comply. When you demand a payment for something you are not entitled to and you threaten harm, to me that is nothing other than extortion. That is what we have in the commercial relationships of companies in Australia: large companies misusing their bargaining power. Coles did so because of purported 'profit gaps' from the supplier that had not been subject to a prior agreement. The whole problem with what Coles did is that they did it post contract. That is what was unconscionable conduct. They could have engaged in exactly the same conduct—made those demands of those companies to fill their profit gaps—if they had done it pre contract. Nothing under our laws would have stopped them. Therefore it is very important that private companies be able to keep their profitability, their rate of profit and their rate of return to their private shareholders confidential.
If I am working for one of those large supermarket chains and am sitting down in contract negotiations with a supplier, if I am able to get hold of their private taxation records and know how much profit they made the year before, that gives me the ability to—excuse the unparliamentary language, Mr Deputy Speaker—screw them even further. If you know the profitability of a private company you are working with and you have market power, you can abuse that market power to squeeze more profit out of them. That is the reason why private companies are private. The other reason we see in the retail leasing sector of this country, where large shopping centre owners can use their market power to squeeze their tenants. If they are able to know what the tenants' total sales are as a group and know what their profitability is, when it comes to sitting down for contract negotiations they are able to use that information, which should be kept confidential in the Taxation Office but is made public under the policy of the previous Labor government, to screw those companies' profitability.
The third reason is simply safety and security. What we are asking is to have the main owners of these companies—private companies that are paying the correct amount of tax to the Australian Taxation Office—to declare their records. We live in a hostile society. We have already seen examples of the risk of kidnapping and extortion. These people should not have their private records, their private wealth and the profits they have made the previous year exposed to every villain in the country. But that is what the Labor Party wants to do. If nothing is done—if this legislation does not go through—those records will be made public by the end of November.
But the main reason why this is poor policy is that it dampens entrepreneurial activity. If a private individual has a company that is turning over, say, $80 million to $90 million they will be concerned if they increase their sales and perhaps hit that $100 million threshold that they will have to disclose all the taxation records of that company to the public—to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Why should they? That will deter entrepreneurial activity in this country and that is something that those on that side of the chamber simply do not understand. They do not understand the importance of entrepreneurial activity for the wealth creation and job creation of this country. It is entrepreneurial activity that triggers innovation, new products and services in this nation. We need to do everything to protect, nourish, encourage and reward entrepreneurial activity. But forcing these people to make public their confidential taxation records will dampen that entrepreneurial activity.
We have seen how harmful this can be to job creation. Take the example of New South Wales versus Victoria. We have seen a change in government in Victoria, with a left-wing socialist government coming in. It has ripped up contracts and dampened entrepreneurial activity in that state. We have seen the New South Wales government, with a more free market Liberal government, the Liberal coalition government, that understands the importance of protecting and nurturing entrepreneurial activity. And guess what we have seen in job creation since the start of this year? In New South Wales, where that entrepreneurial drive and activity is encouraged, rewarded and respected we have seen the creation, since January this year, of 122,000 full-time jobs. Guess how many were created in Victoria. Have a guess. If you guessed zero, as compared to New South Wales with 122,000, and thought that Victoria had created zero jobs, you would be wrong. In fact, in the same time that 122,000 full-time jobs have been created in New South Wales, Victoria has lost over 6,000 jobs. Victoria has gone backwards because its government does not understand the importance and value of entrepreneurial activity, by ripping up contracts and giving power to the unions. Why would someone want to go and invest their money in Victoria with such a government? Is it any wonder we have seen job creation in New South Wales and a lack of jobs in Victoria?
That is why this legislation needs to pass and why it is good legislation. We need to ensure that businesses in the private sector can invest and run their companies, do all the reporting they have to do to the Australian Taxation Office—no-one objects to that; they must comply with the letter of the law—but they should not and cannot be made to disclose those records publicly. This was another shameful policy of the previous Labor government. We are fixing it.
This is one of the many hard jobs that this government is doing. There has been much criticism of this government in the press, but what is not realised is the impossible task that we have faced, the absolute policy mess that we have inherited in almost every single portfolio—complete and utter policy disaster. And repairing these things and repairing Labor's mess is hard work. It sometimes makes leaders of this country unpopular. No-one likes to know that they are having something taken off them. It is very easy as a politician or as a government to give people things—it is very easy. It is very easy to borrow the money and have another government down the track pay it off. It is very easy to do that. Each year we have to find close to $14 billion, just to pay the interest on the money that these guys borrowed over six years. That money has to come from somewhere. We face tough decisions in this country.
Leadership in this country is not easy; it is hard. When you make hard decisions it is very easy for every man and his dog to go out there and attack you. But that is what leadership is about; it is about making hard and unpopular decisions. It is about going through patches where you will be unpopular and when your polling results will go down. But, ultimately, good government in this country is about making those hard decisions and, when the election time comes around, the citizens of this country respect you. It is not about popularity; it is not a popularity contest. We continually face some very hard decisions in this country. This bill goes to some.
So far, we have done a lot of hard work, but we still have a lot more hard work to do. We still have to wind back that budget. We cannot continue to go on borrowing money and running up that debt for future generations. We can make all the decisions we want to here but, if Labor and their mates the Greens on the other side of this House, in the Senate, block the legislation, that will make it harder and harder and harder. This is a good piece of legislation. I hope those on that side of the House understand the mess that they created, understand how faulty their ideas are and that they get behind the bill and support it. I commend this bill to the House.
On a day on which the government that promised us they would give us a government of adults have become a national laughing stock it is interesting to hear the previous speaker, in this debate on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015, talking about good economic management and the need to deal with deficit and debt.
Having talked up a storm about deficit and debt this is a government that now wants to run around talking about personal income tax cuts. It is remarkable. The truth is that if we have an issue to do with deficit and debt then we need to fix that rather than seek to lead people up the garden path with undertakings concerning personal tax cuts.
In terms of dealing with issues to do with deficit and debt, we need to have a proper crackdown on tax avoidance, which has reached very great dimensions indeed. One aspect of reducing tax avoidance has been giving the tax office the power to publish details of the taxable income and tax paid by companies with annual turnovers of $100 million or more. I understand that there are about 2,300 of them. The tax office itself has said that some private groups linked to wealthy individuals with complex tax structures display more aggressive tax behaviours and characteristics. The tax office says that wealthy individuals and their private trusts often have complex arrangements and utilise flow-through entities such as trusts and partnerships in addition to companies.
On average, high-wealth individual group structures consist of five companies, five trusts, one self-managed super fund and one partnership. Amazing. But the government wants to water down Labor's transparency legislation. We will not support legislation that hides this information and we hope that the crossbenches will not support it either.
Liberal and National Party MPs have claimed that revealing information about private companies would, effectively, expose the personal wealth of those who own them, which could expose them to kidnapping. This is laughable. The information relates to companies, not personal tax details, and only those above $100 million. You do not have to be an especially bright kidnapper to work out who the directors of our largest companies are. If this argument holds any water, why haven't we scrapped the Business Review Weeklyrich list on the same grounds? I salute Dick Smith, who, notwithstanding his personal wealth, has said that, not only does he support this kind of transparency in this legislation; but he would like to see even more transparency. He says that wealthy people should be proud to disclose the amount of tax that they pay.
Treasurer Hockey once said:
… the challenge is that everyone in Australia has to help to do the heavy lifting in the budget, because if the burden falls on a few, the weight of that burden will crush them.
Everyone is going to have to make a contribution …
And he expressly nominated big business. Unfortunately, he has since backed away from action to tackle companies that avoid tax by shifting billions of dollars in profits between Australia and their international subsidiaries. His paltry effort at tackling multinational tax avoidance is worth a total of $30 million over four years—less than one-sixtieth of Labor's multinational tax avoidance package. After promising to reap billions from tax integrity measures, the Treasurer's May budget barely scratched the surface. That is one of the reasons why he has lost public support and that is one of the reasons why he will not be Treasurer for much longer.
Frankly, his budget effort was not good enough, for a number of reasons. First, the government said that it would act to stop tax avoidance by profit shifting across international borders. They said they were going to do something about it. Second, the issue of global corporations loading up subsidiaries with debt so they can claim to have made all their profits in low-tax jurisdictions was a major topic of discussion at the G20 conference, where countries were urged by civil society to stop global tax avoidance, and Australia needs to be part of the international effort to stop this. Third, the government was crying poor in releasing its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December 2014, saying that it had suffered a revenue downturn and would have to cut spending.
Before the government taxes the students, the pensioners and the unemployed, it should make sure that multinational corporations are paying their fair share of tax. The Tax Justice Network has revealed a lot of detail about this issue. For example, they have revealed how Volcafe, the world's second largest raw coffee trader, with a market share of 13 per cent, managed to minimise the tax it paid through the use of the tax haven of Jersey in the English Channel. It would buy coffee from small cooperatives in developing countries at the world market price and then sell the coffee beans to its own subsidiary, Cofina, at a similar price. In that way it made next to no profit in the developing countries and paid almost no tax to the governments of the developing countries it operated in, cheating them out of much-needed tax revenue. Cofina then sold the coffee beans to the final customers such as Nestle or Starbucks. The money from the sale flowed into Jersey, where Cofina paid no tax on it. In 1998 Cofina sold US$408 million worth of coffee yet only made a gross profit of US$27 million. It was a postbox company with only one or two administrative staff. The coffee beans themselves travelled directly from the developing country to the final customer in the developed world. They never passed through Jersey. The company documents showed that the firm went out of its way to keep everything top secret, with Volcafe employees told to identify themselves as Cofina staff even though they were not.
This demonstrates the way in which this is a worldwide problem. I remember meeting with representatives of the Micah Challenge in Canberra in June last year as part of their Voices for Justice campaign and being briefed about the problems of tax evasion by multinational corporations, which deprived developing countries, on a significant scale, of vital revenue for poverty reduction and sustainable human development. Christian Aid has pointed out that, since 2008, developing countries have lost more than US$160 billion through multinational corporate tax evasion. This amount is actually bigger than the amount that these countries receive in aid, which amounted to US$120 billion in 2009.
One of the main ways tax evasion occurs is through transfer pricing, which is when goods and services are sold between subsidiaries of the same parent company. These goods and services include things like intellectual property rights, management services, branding and insurance. The sales take place within the same multinational company. As long as the subsidiaries of the company charge each other a fair market price known as an arm's length price, such transactions are perfectly legitimate. Tax is paid where it should be: the place where the business is actually taking place. However, by artificially altering the price, the company can increase its costs in a location with high taxes and transfer revenue to a location with low taxes—often a tax haven. This is known as transfer mispricing, and, with 60 per cent of world trade now taking place within rather than between multinational corporations, there are substantial opportunities to manipulate transactions to reduce tax. This is especially the case for things like brands and management services. To detect if a company is distorting the price of a particular good, you can compare it with the normal price of the good traded between two unrelated companies. But, when it comes to things like branding rights and management services, it is much harder to determine if the price being charged is a fair one. It has been estimated that Australia lost 1.1 billion euros through transfer mispricing to the EU between 2005 in 2007 and US$1½ billion in tax revenue through transfer mispricing to the US in the same period.
It is not just Australia; it is right around the world. In 2007 Bangladesh lost an estimated US$172 million in tax revenue as a result of trade mispricing of transactions with the EU and the US. Most of these losses occurred in the knitting and crocheting apparel industry. The Bangladesh government had invested technical and financial resources to facilitate the growth of this industry yet lost out on much-needed tax revenue. Micah Challenge believes that the government should require all multinational corporations registered in Australia to provide a worldwide combined report, including a country-by-country breakdown of their assets and their tax paid, and that we should have the G20 adopt this country-by-country reporting as standard.
The issue of multinational profit shifting is about fairly sharing the revenue burden. When a handful of big businesses shift their profits offshore, it hits the federal budget's bottom line, and, when a small number of big firms do the wrong thing, it is the great majority of businesses large and small, the self-employed and the PAYG taxpayers who end up paying more than they should. We do not need that kind of harmful economic activity which encourages firms to focus their energies on getting their accountants to play with loopholes that might allow debt-shifting within organisations, not in order to improve the productive capacity of the economy but in order to find the next loophole in the tax system.
We need to pay attention to the problem of financial inequality, which has been rising in recent times. There was a report in June last year called Advance Australia fair? What to do about growing inequality in Australia, written by Bob Douglas, Sharon Friel, Richard Denniss and David Morawetz, which finds:
In the wake of a declining resources boom, there is a growing gulf between those in the top range and those in the lower ranges of wealth and income distributions.
That report warns that inequality is increasing rapidly in Australia, posing dangers to 'community wellbeing, health, social stability, sustainable growth and long-term prosperity'. Given that, this is the last time that we need the government to be giving away money to firms with multibillion dollar profits while taking money away from those who can least afford it.
Australia's egalitarian values demand that we have a smarter approach on multinational profit-shifting. The union United Voice, in collaboration with the Tax Justice Network Australia, released in September last year a groundbreaking report, Who pays for our common wealth? Tax practices of the ASX 200, which revealed that 29 per cent of Australia's 200 largest listed companies pay an effective corporate tax rate of 10 per cent or less, and that 14 per cent have an effective tax rate of zero per cent. This translates into an estimated loss in annual revenue of $8.4 billion. That is a matter of very considerable concern.
The 2014-15 federal budget eliminated 3,000 jobs in the Australian tax office, and things like this greatly reduce the ATO's capacity to fight tax evasion by wealthy individuals and multinational corporations. Regrettably, what happens is that the employees who accept redundancies and leave are the ones the ATO can least afford to lose. Even worse, some of them accept private sector offers which see them put their skills and experience into increasing the budget deficit rather than reducing it. We should tackle debt-shifting, close tax loopholes and resource the tax office to properly tackle artificial and contrived business structures. The tax office could help its own cause by revealing details of the worst corporate practitioners of tax avoidance. Taxpayer privacy for individuals is of course legitimate, but large corporations cannot make the same claims with a straight face. They are required to report much of their financial affairs to their shareholders and to the market already.
Michael West, writing in The Age, has drawn attention to the low visibility of the financial statements of foreign multinationals operating in Australia. He says that viewing the statements of a foreign multinational is expensive and not very informative:
While proper audit procedures are in place in the sphere of ASX companies, there is a widespread failure of the audit profession and regulators in the foreign multinational space: accounts which don't stack up, myriad failures of disclosure, and a slew of failures to adhere to Australian accounting standards – and therefore the Corporations Act.
We need to have greater scrutiny in this area. We need to make sure that parliamentary committees like the Senate Economics References Committee hear from the real decision makers and make them account for their decisions. I think our parliamentary committees should make a point of explaining and examining the real decision makers.
A Labor government will shut down loopholes which allow big multinational companies to send profits overseas, ensuring that they pay their fair share of tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, our plan will bring at least $1.9 billion back to Australia in tax from big multinationals over the next four years and raise $7.2 billion over 10 years as these tax loopholes are closed. This is the sort of approach we need. We need improved transparency and data matching, and we need a genuine commitment to tackling tax avoidance rather than the legislation before the House.
I too rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 and the amendment to the second reading moved by Dr Leigh. I congratulate those on this side of the House who have spoken in support of the bill as we put it to the House. As we know, the previous government legislated, in June 2013, to require the Australian tax office to publish certain taxpayer information of corporate tax entities with an income of $100 million or more.
I was just listening to the previous speaker. He is not a bad bloke, but listen to the arguments he puts forward. He just has a total misunderstanding of corporations and finance and how to run a business. He wants to put all this regulation and all this exposure and transparency into the corporate sector, but is he prepared to do it for the unions? No. They do not want the unions to pay any tax. They do not want the unions to be transparent. But they want to go after those who build the wealth and those who contribute to the wealth of this country and say, 'We're going to take it to you.'
He came up with an estimate of $1.9 billion over four years. Now, if you have an estimate from anyone on that side of the House, you cannot believe it. Currently we are paying nearly a billion dollars a month in interest purely because of their reckless governing of the economy in the six years that they were in government. They stand up here, and they get on their soapboxes and take the moral high ground, but they are not prepared to make the unions pay tax or make them transparent. Let us get back to the point of this discussion, anyway. We might as well get back there; I have had the crack there!
The information that was legislated to be published included an entity's name, the entity's Australian business number and the entity's total income, taxable income and tax payable. The purpose of this government's amendment bill is to ensure that the release of information by the Commissioner of Taxation, as I described earlier, does not jeopardise the privacy, personal security and market environments of Australian-owned private companies. I do not know whether those on that side of the House understand the difference between private and public, but in the first instance, for corporate private entities, market security and corporate security would be paramount.
Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I know that you ran a successful business, as I did too. Part of running a successful business is also the privacy and security; the intellectual property; and the information that your business makes its daily decisions on, called the profit-and-loss sheet and the balance sheet. That is private information. That is private information that you have earned, and you should decide what happens with that information. Obviously, it has to go to the ATO, but private companies are not required under the current law to show or publish that sort of information—intellectual property information and profit—and they should not have to, either, because it is their information, which their opposition will use and public companies will use to destroy their market share and destroy their profitability.
As the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer have said before, this government is committed to combating tax avoidance and is on the way to implementing well-considered and balanced measures, which I must say would provide those private companies in that group of companies targeted by the previous government with a sense of relief about the welfare and the profitability of their companies. The coalition government have several concerns—well-founded concerns—about Labor's legislation, which is why we have moved to introduce legislation to exempt Australian-owned private companies.
As I said before, this government is committed to combating tax avoidance. Australia was the G20 president in 2014. We led the global response to tax avoidance by multinational companies and ensured that it not only was on the agenda but remained at the top of the agenda. The Assistant Treasurer has stated:
Under Australia's leadership, the first of the OECD/G20's base erosion and profit-shifting recommendations were delivered last year.
The budget continued the government's strong international leadership by actioning the 2014 OECD/G20 base erosion and profit-shifting recommendations on country-by-country reporting, anti-hybrid rules, harmful tax practices, and treaty abuse rules.
Australia will implement the OECD's country-by-country reporting from 1 January 2016. We are one of the first countries to commit to implementing it.
Country-by-country reporting to tax administrations will require large multinationals to report annually for each jurisdiction in which they do business the amount of revenue, profit, income tax and economic activity. For the first time tax administrations will get a global picture of multinationals' operations. This is a significant step in improving transparency for tax administrations.
Earlier I spoke about the government's concerns about the Labor government's laws, and confidentiality was and is one of the big risks. Labor's legislation has the potential to undermine the confidentiality of taxpayer information, a fundamental tenet of Australia's taxation system.
As noted by the coalition in its Senate Economics Legislation Committee dissenting report in June 2013:
Confidentiality of taxpayer information is fundamental to the administration of taxation law.
Confidentiality is protected because ensuring the privacy of sensitive information, including commercial information, goes to public confidence in the administration of taxation law.
That confidence is vital for companies, as I stated before. The confidentiality, the intellectual property, the competitiveness in the market—the confidence in the administration of the tax law is vital.
This is an issue that several Labor members have highlighted previously themselves yet failed to apply in these circumstances. In the Hansard of Wednesday, 29 September 2010, Bill Shorten said:
The inconsistencies and ambiguities associated with the existing law have the potential to undermine its primary purpose—that is, to provide clear protection for taxpayer information. The taxation law has long recognised that such protection is fundamental to ensuring that taxpayers maintain their confidence in the operation of the tax system.
Also there was Chris Bowen, who did a media release on 13 March 2009. In that media release, he stated:
The Government affirms the importance of maintaining a high level of protection of information provided by taxpayers …
Then there was Wayne Swan, who did a doorstop interview in Brisbane on 24 January 2013. He said:
… I would have thought that everyone out there that was concerned about good public administration would see the common sense in observing what the Tax Office says about confidentiality provisions because they are important to every Australian and it's not a decision of the Government, it's the decision of the Tax Office.
The importance of taxpayer confidentiality is reinforced by Keeping it safe: the OECD guide on the protection of confidentiality of information exchanged for tax purposes, which says:
… taxpayers need to have confidence that the often sensitive financial information is not disclosed inappropriately …
There is also the commercial risk factor. It has the potential to provide competitors, suppliers and upstream purchasers of goods or services of private companies with sensitive commercial information. As you know from your private company, Deputy Speaker, in my private company, when I ran it, the last thing I wanted my competitors, my suppliers and my clients to know was the profit margins I was making. That was highly sensitive information and, obviously, would be used in commercial negotiations with all of those stakeholders in the running of my company and the handling of my market environment. Again, the commercial risk in the Labor proposal was enormous.
In the words of one of Australia's best known food manufacturers, details such as their total income and tax payable are:
… not otherwise available to our competitive suppliers which has the potential to be used in a manner that will cause real financial damage to our business.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Is the member for Swan willing to give way?
I will take your question; whether I will answer it or not is another matter.
Perfectly understood. I wonder if the member for Swan might inform the House whether or not the private company of his own, to which he was referring, had a turnover in excess of $100 million.
That is confidential information. That is part of our system—taxpayer information is confidential, so that question is irrelevant. I am talking about the confidential. You are talking about an arbitrary number that you have imposed as part of your legislation, and that arbitrary number is irrelevant because it is a private company and should be treated as a private company. Hopefully, that answers your question.
No.
I am sure it did not, but we were not discussing the issue of the arbitrary figure that Labor came up with as a legislation point. What is the difference between a $99 million company and a $101 million company? Probably a good accountant. I say to the member for Fraser that I appreciate him asking that question.
I move on to personal and reputational safety concerns. Particularly during Labor's consultations in 2013, business stakeholders expressed concern that the measure posed a risk of compliant taxpayers being unfairly targeted by activists and having their reputation tarnished. Of course, we have seen that before. If the winners of lotto all get rung up and asked to make donations, then the same thing would apply to companies who are actively pursued by professional fundraising companies when they see what sort of turnover and what sorts of margins and profits they make.
Godfrey Hirst Australia made a submission to the Treasury discussion paper Improving the transparency of Australia's business tax system on 24 April 2013. As the chairman and CEO of Godfrey Hirst Australia pointed out, Australia's largest carpet manufacturer noted that:
By publishing extremely limited information selected specifically to put the targeted taxpayers in the worst possible light, it invites (incites) public action against the target taxpayers and potentially those associated with them. There are national and international examples of such actions against companies involving physical damage, reputational damage and commercial boycotts. Publication of the data will give information that could be detrimental to their shareholders, including to their safety.
A similar disclosure regime was also abandoned in Japan in 2005 after a recommendation from the Japanese tax advisory commission, which found that there were 'various reports of the disclosure being a factor in causing crimes and harassment'. While the Labor Party points to the publications of the BRW rich list as a comparison, a magazine's best estimate of someone's wealth cannot be compared to the release of detailed official taxpayer information by the ATO.
Regarding the effectiveness of the law, the government also has concerns regarding the incomplete nature of the information. It ignores the fact that personal income tax is payable on the company's after-tax profits by its shareholders, who are often on the top marginal rate of 49 per cent. The information published is incomplete and misleading as it omits any other reference to other taxes that private companies must pay, including the array of state taxes, fees and charges from payroll tax, stamp duties and land tax, local rates and charges, as well as federal fuel tax and levies. The legislation does not apply to entities that are not set up as companies, such as private equity and hedge funds that are not widely held trusts—and, as I said before, it does not apply to unions either. The publication of this information to a wider audience will not in any way enhance the ability of Australia's tax authorities to collect additional revenue.
Further to what I have said, the Assistant Treasurer has also said:
Australia has no harmful tax practices, but the ATO has already commenced exchanging information with other tax administrations on preferential tax regimes. This will help the ATO identify secret tax deals provided to multinationals by other countries that may contribute tax avoidance in Australia.
On treaty abuse, the government is acting now to incorporate the OECD's recommendations into Australia's treaty practice so that the multinationals do not exploit treaties to avoid tax. The government is also going further and faster than these BEPS recommendations. The government released exposure draft legislation for the new multinational anti-avoidance law to stop multinationals artificially avoiding a taxable presence in Australia and force them to pay tax in Australia on profits from the economic activities undertaken here. The legislation will be introduced shortly.
The government will also double penalties for large companies that use tax avoidance and profit shifting schemes. The Assistant Treasurer went on to say:
We will close the tax loophole that currently means digital products and services imported by the consumers are not subject to GST. Foreign providers will now be required to charge GST in the same way as domestic providers. The government has asked the Board of Taxation to work with businesses to develop a voluntary code for greater disclosure by companies of their tax information. I expect that the Board of Taxation will look at ways to provide more information to help inform the public about companies' tax information.
In conclusion, I say that I support this legislation introduced by the Assistant Treasurer. The fact is that private companies in Australia need to be protected from all the elements that will come out of releasing their information, which is private and should be confidential because they are not public companies. As we know, under current legislation in Australia, public companies have to disclose because they have public shareholders and they promote their products and promote their share sales through the stock exchange, which private companies cannot afford to do. I commend this bill to the House.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This amendment exempts Australian owned private companies from having their tax affairs publicly disclosed. The passing of this amendment will ensure that there is greater public transparency of the tax affairs of companies but without risking the privacy, personal security and market environments of Australian owned private companies.
Private companies will still be required to provide the ATO with all the information relevant to making an assessment of their tax liability. If the Commissioner of Taxation has concern about the tax affairs of Australian owned private companies he already has the necessary information to take any action. This will not change the ATO's capacity to catch tax avoiders and will not affect company tax revenue collections. Australian owned private companies were swept up by this measure, which was proposed in the context of addressing potential tax avoidance by multinational companies.
As noted by Chris Jordan, the Commissioner of Taxation: 'If you look at the history of the matter, it was really for multinational companies operating here, disclosing quite low revenue.' The government is committed to combating tax avoidance and, while disclosure of taxpayer information can help, any action should be well considered and balanced and with the benefits outweighing the risks. We cannot be confident this is the case with Australian owned private companies. Submissions have clearly highlighted that the risks outweigh the benefits. Making the confidential details of these companies available will disproportionately risk their competitiveness, security and privacy.
There are better ways to strengthen the integrity of our tax system. The government's commitment to combating multinational tax avoidance was demonstrated in the budget. Australia is actioning the 2014 G20 OECD base erosion and profit-shifting action plan recommendations on country-by-country reporting, anti-hybrid rules, harmful tax practices and treaty-abuse rules. Our efforts go further than these BEPS recommendations. The government will shortly introduce into the parliament new multinational anti-avoidance rules to stop multinationals artificially avoiding a taxable presence in Australia and force them to pay tax, in Australia, on the profits deemed to have been derived from economic activities undertaken here.
We will also close a tax loophole and require foreign providers of digital products and services to Australian consumers to charge GST in the same way as domestic providers. The government will also double penalties for large companies that use tax avoidance and profit-shifting schemes. We have also asked the Board of Taxation to develop a voluntary code for greater disclosure by companies of their tax information. As foreshadowed in the budget, the government has signed an international agreement to enable information exchange under the OECD's common reporting standard to address tax evasion.
The government will also consider further action to address tax avoidance by multinationals, especially with the finalisation of the OECD base erosion and profit-shifting work later this year. The combination of these measures and this amendment strike the right balance between cracking down on tax avoidance and increasing transparency, without unduly risking the privacy, security and competitiveness of Australian family businesses. I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (18:06): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
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.
This bill, and its associated bills, says everything about this government, to quote the member for Wentworth, being a government of 'slogans, not advocacy'. The bill is about red-tape repeal day. It happened months and month ago, but, finally, we are now dealing with this particular tranche of legislation. The government has waxed lyrical about all of its savings. What it has actually done is normal statute revision work of any government. We did this without much fanfare when we were in government, and it was done almost invariably in the Federation Chamber because it was not controversial, but this government is always about slogans, as the member for Wentworth said. It is all about three-word slogans and catchy little phrases. It talked all about this wonderful piece of legislation—the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill. It sounds impressive, but do you know what? The government estimates that this will result in $41.4 million in deregulatory savings. Why this is not dealt with in the Federation Chamber, I do not know.
Keen listeners will recall that I mentioned there were two deregulatory savings measures in this piece of legislation—and guess what? The explanatory memorandum refers to the other aspect of this legislation. I kid you not, it generates a whopping $3,000 in deregulatory savings. There you have it—the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill. Such fanfare! Wonderful stuff! We have a Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister—it was the member for Kooyong, now it is the member for Pearce—coming in here and talking about it. It creates just over $41.4 million in savings from these two amendments, and the government expects a round of applause.
Put in context, this is less than 10 per cent of the $475.7 million in deregulatory savings the government had reported since last the repeal day, in October 2014. What makes up the balance? I will go through a couple of things. The bill amends and repeals several acts in the agricultural portfolio for nil deregulatory savings. How does this affect primary producers in my electorate of Blair, which is a regional-rural seat? Dairy farmers in the Somerset region can rest easy knowing that the government will appeal the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974, even though the last agreement under that act came into effect in 1976 and the period for new agreements lapsed in 1977. Goodness me, they will be up in arms in Esk and Toogoolawah about that one!
Meat exporters around Kilcoy and Coominya in my electorate will also see absolutely no effect from the repeal of the Meat Export Charge Act 1984 and the Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984. Those two acts impose charges and applications for the inspection of export meat and meat products. In government, we introduced a new cost recovery arrangement for these inspections under our export certification reform package. The cost recovery arrangements are now detailed under the Australian Export Meat Inspection System and fees are collected under different legislation. Farmers in Blair are unlikely to be troubled also by the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme or the Retirement Assistance for Sugarcane Farmers Scheme from the Social Security Act 1991. These schemes closed—I kid you not, Mr Deputy Speaker—in 2001 and 2007 respectively. Additionally, repealing the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991 will not see these councils furiously updating their profiles across the internet. There are no industry councils existing under the act, and no councils have actually been established since 1993. For the record, the second reading speech identifies that only two councils were established under that act—the Grains Industry Council, which ceased in 1998, and the Australian Pig Industry Council, which ceased in 1999. Members of those councils have, presumably, moved on to bigger and better things some time ago.
This bill also amends and repeals several acts in the Treasury for, again, nil deregulatory savings. How will all of these changes effect the residents in my electorate of Blair? As all of the transactions under the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959 are now complete, I suspect the government's repeal of this act will not make the front, the second or even the last page of The Queensland Times, published in Ipswich in my electorate. The people of Ipswich and Somerset are unlikely to rush to their accountants following the repeal of the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Act 1971, as changes to tax laws in 2006 meant that that type of borrowing taxed under the act could no longer arise. That act is redundant and will be repealed. I could go on and on—and I will.
There are examples in Indigenous affairs—my shadow portfolio. The bill repeals two acts in the Indigenous affairs portfolio. The first is the Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with the States) Act 1973. This act enables the appointment of state government employees to the Australian Public Service and APS-permitted persons to perform functions under the state laws relating to Indigenous affairs. This act is redundant as the Public Service Act 1999 has similar arrangements for the transfer of state and APS employees to another state or agency to perform services relating to and including Indigenous affairs. The second act repealed is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975. This act supersedes certain historical Queensland laws that discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Thankfully, those discriminatory Queensland laws have been repealed, and the act is no longer needed.
Again, we are not arguing that the government should not be doing this. This is spent legislation—redundant acts. This legislation does not deserve a special stunt day. It should be dealt with in the Federation Chamber. It should be remembered that this legislation will not improve the lot in life or the lifestyle of one Indigenous Australian. It will not restore the more than $500 million that the Abbott government has cut savagely from Indigenous front-line services and programs since the 2014-15 budget. It will not correct for one moment the government's shambolic Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which has left hundreds of Indigenous organisations struggling with ongoing financial uncertainty. It will not erase the self-proclaimed Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs' offensive description of Aboriginal people's right to live on traditional lands as a 'lifestyle choice'.
The second bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015, will have no financial impact on the bottom line. This is the third statute revision bill introduced by this government in this parliament. As I said before, these are not novel; they are not modern legislative instruments. Governments of all stripes have been doing this in the Australian parliament—the place down the road or this place here—since 1934, the year Joseph Lyons was Prime Minister and, I might add, the year the Three Stooges released their first film, so I am told. This is routine government work carried out by all governments. These bills correct spelling, punctuation and other drafting errors in the legislation. They update cross-references. They remove spent or obsolete provisions. It is all worthy work. It is not bold deregulatory reform, no matter what the government would have you believe.
Just like its predecessors, this is a housekeeping bill. It is not controversial or confronting. It does not remove or streamline any operative regulation. If this bill were a colour, it would be faded beige. The member for Pearce and parliamentary secretary sums this up neatly in his second reading speech:
The bill makes improvements to the acts it amends without making substantive changes to the law.
He is right. The bill is no page turner. For example, item 5 of schedule 2 of the bill corrects a typographical error in subitem 20(10) of schedule 2 to the Medibank Private Sale Act 2006 where the first word of subitem (10) does not have an initial capital letter—great regulatory reform! Other corrections include correcting a grammatical error in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, which refers to 'an veterinary chemical product' rather than 'a veterinary chemical product'. So, it replaces an 'an' with an 'a'—truly heroic reform! It introduces gender-neutral language into the acts. The bill makes purely technical amendments to the indexation provisions in certain acts that rely on the consumer price index, altering 'reference base' terminology to 'index reference base' terminology.
This act will not affect any pension payments, unlike the government's plan to index pensions to CPI rather than the higher of CPI, MTAWE and PBLCI from 2017, which will erode the value of pensions and make it harder for older Australians to live with dignity. The 15,000 aged pensioners in my electorate would rather the Abbott government left their pensions alone than seek a pat on the back for minor technical change to indexing terminology.
The Statute Law Revision Bill also amends relevant legislation that predates ACT and Northern Territory self-government so that where that legislation binds the states it also binds the territories. The bill repeals spent and obsolete acts, including the Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Act 1975. For the interest of members with electorates outside the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales, I am told Captains Flat is a town south of Queanbeyan. This is all a worthy purpose, but the act is obsolete and worthy of being repealed. However, it will not reduce the regulatory burden on a single Australian business in a measurable way. It will not create a single job. To my knowledge, no business has contacted my office to demand the repeal of the Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Act 1975. For the government to elevate and exaggerate this simple housekeeping bill is a stunt—a slogan, as the member for Wentworth has said. It reveals an arrogant government that is out of touch, out of ideas and out of its depth.
The Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 is the third bill that this chamber will debate. The bill will have no financial impact. It will repeal about 850 amending or repealed acts enacted between the years—you guessed it!—1980 and 1989. Every one of those acts has been inoperative for at least 25 years. We agree that redundant, unenforced or irrelevant acts should be removed from the statute books. That is what we did when we were in government. But we did so without pretending that repealing the Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Act 1975 was bold regulatory reform that will 'reduce the regulatory burden on any person or business in the country'.
Soon enough the Abbott government will run out of stunts to pull for these repeal days, and we see that it is already happening. Goodness knows what is going to happen when they get rid of the Amending Acts 2010 to 2015 Repeal Bill. How will that satisfy the Australian public, which has taken repeal days into their hearts and their homes? The government should consider repealing its policies and legislation that hurt Australians—the pensioners, the families, the students in my electorate. They are the ones who need protection. The government should hang its head in shame over these slogans, as the member for Wentworth has said, and these stunts.
I rise to support the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, which continues to deliver this government's deregulation agenda. Cutting red tape is essential to building a stronger and more prosperous economy. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, along with the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 and the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015, further cleans up the Commonwealth's statute books by repealing acts and amending unnecessary and outdated provisions. To date, the government has delivered a total deregulatory saving of $2.45 billion.
In 2014 the government introduced legislation to repeal over 10,000 legislative instruments and 1,800 acts of parliament. As of 31 December 2014, as a result of deregulatory measures introduced by the government, approximately $1.5 billion in reforms have been implemented, and approximately $820 million worth of deregulatory measures identified in 2014 are in the process of being implemented. The implementation of some of these measures has been delayed by the parliament, while others are being implemented in association with the states and territories and will be enacted in due course. Through our actions, Australia's businesses, organisations, families and individuals are spending less time dealing with overburdensome regulation. For the first time in our history the federal government has completed a thorough and accurate stocktake of all federal regulation. We continue to identify and assess the cost of government regulation and have already implemented the means to ensure that we continue to reduce unnecessary and unviable regulation. For example, deregulation units have been established in all departmental portfolios utilising existing resources. These units are tasked with reducing red tape across all Commonwealth departments and agencies. We are also working closely with the states and territories to reduce red tape across all levels of government.
For the first time a federal government has, with a high degree of accuracy, publicly reported to parliament a downturn in the total amount and cost of federal regulation. Our goal in government is to make life easier for Australians. This means making life easier for businesses to invest and create more jobs. Individuals and families also benefit from our deregulation agenda. For individuals and Australian families it means less time in queues, less time filling out forms and less time searching for information.
Under Labor, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion annually, an astounding 4.2 per cent of GDP. Australians were promised by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Labor would have a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' approach to legislation. Instead, we were burdened by an avalanche of new regulations. In fact, in just 5½ years 21,000 additional regulations were introduced by the previous Labor government. This equates to 10 regulations for every day Labor were last in government.
Under the former Labor government, legislative changes, including the mining tax, the National Broadband Network, Future of Financial Advice legislation and changes to the Fair Work Act, all escaped detailed regulatory impact scrutiny following exemptions granted by then Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Unfortunately, Labor's commitment to ramping up the regulatory burden was felt by every Australian. Shamefully the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index ranked Australia 128th, out of 148 countries, for burden of government regulation. Australia also placed second last in a 2012 ranking of productivity growth by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Fortunately, this government has fulfilled its commitment to cut $1 billion in red and green tape every year. In fact, as we stand here today the government has delivered $2.45 billion worth of deregulatory savings. This is more than double our $1 billion annual target that we promised to deliver. When we held our first ever regulation repeal day, on 26 March 2014, Labor dismissed it as a joke and still continue to do so. I take this opportunity to reinforce to members opposite the success of our repeal days and the benefits realised as a result of our actions. We announced measures on our first repeal day that when fully implemented would result in gross savings in excess of $700 million in reduced compliance costs. By our second repeal day, on 29 October 2014, the government had announced measures that when fully implemented would result in net savings in excess of $2.1 billion in reduced compliance costs. Today, on our third repeal day, we can announce that our measures when fully implemented will result in net savings in excess of $2.45 billion in reduced compliance costs.
No matter how you look at these figures they cannot be dismissed as trivial. Sadly, Labor tries to do exactly that. They dismiss the facts because regulation is in their DNA and they cannot shake their addiction to increasing red and green tape at every opportunity. This is particularly damaging for small business. All members of this parliament say that they support small businesses and are committed to job growth. History, however, tells us a different story.
Labor's legacy was 200,000 more Australians unemployed as a result of their term in government. As a result of the former Labor government's actions we saw 519,000 jobs lost across the small business sector. The small business share of private sector employment fell from 53 per cent to 43 per cent, resulting in the loss of 3,000 small businesses under the former government. In regions such as the Central Coast small business collectively is our largest employer. Therefore, it is essential that the environment in which they conduct their business is free from unnecessary regulatory burden. More so, it is vital that businesses are able to grow and deliver more jobs.
The government's annual deregulation report of 2014 states:
Significant progress is being made to help free up the time spent by small businesses in meeting red tape requirements and to alleviate some of the barriers to growth prospects confronting the sector.
No-one would dispute that regulation is essential for ensuring that the rights of employers, employees and the general public are protected. However, business regulation that is inefficient or unnecessary unfortunately imposes undue costs on businesses and individuals. The average Australian business deals with eight regulators in a given year, spends close to four per cent of their total annual expenditure on complying with regulatory requirements and spends approximately 19 hours a week on compliance related activities. This is precious time that could be better utilised growing the business and delivering more jobs. Labor either does not understand or care about the regulatory burden on Australian businesses.
Unlike the former government, we have listened to the concerns of small business operators and are addressing the regulatory burden that placed a handbrake on the Australian economy. Our goal will always be to make life easier for Australians and to make it easier for businesses to invest and create more jobs. Significant progress is being made to help free up the time spent by small businesses dealing with red tape, particularly through this government's repeal days. An estimated 447,000 small businesses will benefit from administrative changes to entry thresholds for pay-as-you-go instalments. Of these, 45,000 small businesses that have no GST reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge a business activity statement where, to date, lodgements have been made only to report PAYG instalments. The remaining 402,000 small businesses with modest or negative incomes that are required to lodge a BAS will no longer have to interact with the PAYG instalment system. We are continuing to build upon these reforms with the implementation of easier monthly pay as you go payments for certain businesses. Businesses choosing to use this new method will only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis. It is anticipated that this will deliver annual compliance savings of $2.7 million.
Other measures in this bill to support Australian businesses include the reform of the 457 visa program by streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications. Additionally we are increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses and we are providing greater flexibility in relation to English language testing and skill requirements. This will deliver forecasted annual compliance savings of $29.9 million.
We are also improving the Australian Tax Office website so that Australian taxpayers can access information including compliance obligations in a timely manner. It is estimated that this will deliver an annual compliance saving of $48.5 million as a result of more people understanding their compliance obligations. In total, through the repeal of the carbon and mining taxes, changes to pay as you go and expanded private sector access to the government's document verification service, we have delivered a combined net saving of $194.4 million for Australian businesses.
Our regulation repeal days are just as important to Australian individuals, students and families as they are to Australian businesses. Measures for individuals contained within this bill include: implementing additional functionality for myGov users, which will allow customers to update their details in one place by using the myGov Tell Us Once service, which will enable secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials; and making identity checks easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing a new prepaid mobile phone. Such initiatives will contribute to approximately $29.3 million of annual compliance savings. This builds upon our previous achievement including the myTax initiative, which has reduced the amount of information. There are 1.4 million users required to supply information to the Australian Taxation Office when completing their eTax forms each year. This single measure will result in a net red tape saving of $426.3 million.
We have also made it easier for individuals to access government services. Centrelink claimants are able to check the status of their claims online, reducing the need for direct follow-up interventions by phone or in person to a Centrelink service centre. These changes will also benefit students, who will be able to upload their course selection and study percentage online, ensuring they can make changes in their own time with minimal disruption.
This bill also develops an online national assessment platform which will deliver the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN, online. This is scheduled to be available from 2017 and will deliver an annual compliance forecasted saving of $9.7 million. It will also provide support to Australian farmers and the agricultural sector through the alignment of registration requirements for stock and pet food with the well understood risks associated with their ingredients and intended use.
This government understands that, in order to build a prosperous economy, we must liberate Australian businesses, community organisations, families and individuals from the burden of unnecessary compliance. We do not want to see people's time taken up with hours of unnecessary paperwork waiting in queues or searching for information when interacting with government. We are committed to working with the Australian community to ascertain how we can reduce even more red tape to help build a more productive and prosperous economy.
I would like to conclude by once again highlighting this government's achievements. As previously noted, the government has delivered a total deregulatory saving of saving of $2.45 billion. This provides: more productive businesses with the ability to generate more jobs; less time spent by families and individuals when dealing with government; greater support for students, allowing them more time to concentrate on study and work; and a stronger and more prosperous economy, where everyone is afforded opportunity to work and lead a healthy lifestyle.
This government will continue to deliver real reductions in red and green tape in order to lift the regulatory burden from Australian businesses, individuals, families and communities. And this government will continue to deliver a prosperous economy that will provide jobs. There will be high jobs and high growth, plenty of employment. After all the initiatives we have introduced in the last two years, I think it is a credit to every single person on this side of the House for everything we have achieved. We are doing a great job and I will always continue to support this government and the wonderful work we are doing. The people of Dobell finally have a decent representative and we are continuing to deliver. I will continue to deliver. I will not be bullied by unions, especially the unions who thought it was fun to vandalise my office on the weekend. They are an absolute disgrace. I stand proudly here as the member for Dobell and I will never let the unions ever take over Dobell ever again. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 on this the 14th day of spring. I think this is the third such occasion where the backbench members, like the member for Dobell, have stood up to celebrate red tape repeal days. In the trenches, attacking commas, they went over the top together to overtake brackets and mow down a couple of full stops. It is incredible the vision that they have, unbelievable. It is definitely a part of that whole militarisation of our political discourse that we have seen from those opposite—a war on windfarms, an assault on solar. You do not just have people planting trees; you form a green army. You do not just have people checking the passengers' shampoo; you form a border force. Everything is militarised as if security is their safety blanket. It is unbelievable. The Prime Minister is happy to jump in a helicopter and put on a jacket—all this militarisation.
We know those opposite like to beat their chests and crow about how visionary they are. Why? Because they can repeal legislation. They come in here seeking a medal for doing their job! That is what governments do. When we were in office, we did it all of the time. The member for Leichhardt is going to speak on this bill. I know he used to be in the RAFF and I commend him for his service. He knows that if you are in the ADF, and the member for Riverina across the table knows this too, that it takes four years to get a medal not two years—the turning up on Monday medal. You must actually turn up every day for four years in the ADF and you will be recognised with the Australian Defence Medal.
Appropriately recognised.
I take that interjection—appropriately recognised. I am not making light of that service at all. Those opposite put out a press release because they attacked a couple of commas, because they mowed down some parentheses. Let us look at what a real, unified government does. Let us look at what happened under the Labor governments.
On my first day in this parliament there was an apology to the stolen generation. We brought in minor social reforms such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme! We had a safe, steady hand on the tiller such that we were able to survive the global financial crisis, the greatest set of headwinds to buffet this nation since the Great Depression. Things like the Fair Work Act are still serving Australian society well. Those Gonski education reforms provide for every kid, whatever their talent and whatever the name over the top of their school to be given an opportunity in life, whether they be rural and remote, Indigenous or have English as their second language. Putting a focus on education is a good thing to do because it makes economic sense and it brings the best and brightest from our greatest resource, which is our population.
The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 is like all of the legislation it has repealed; it is not an achievement of the Abbott government that needs applause. It does not need a press release. It is the government doing what it should be doing. It is the everyday work of government. We need to see it in the context of what the Abbott government have achieved. They said there was a debt and deficit disaster, so that would have been their first focus. I think when Treasurer Hockey was in opposition he said that he would achieve a surplus in his first year. Well, let us have a look at that. The last time I looked at government debt, it was out to $114 billion—but that was last week. How is business investment going—a good guide for those who want an adrenalin surge in the economy? It is down 11 per cent. How about the everyday worker? Real wages are actually falling. Unemployment is at 6.2 per cent—it was 5.7 per cent when we left office. What does that translate to? It translates to 800,000 people out of work. Every person in Tasmania, every person in the Northern Territory and we could probably throw in Riverina as well—800,000 people out of work.
Obviously, this is not a government that is getting things right. We have seen that tonight. They are divided. They have no economic strategy. We had the Minister for Communications coming out and attacking the Prime Minister. And when there should not be a crack of daylight between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, we had the foreign minister coming out and destabilising the vision for this nation. We are two-thirds the way through the electoral cycle. So far, 418 bills have been introduced during this government's time in office. Only 50 per cent of these bills have been passed by both houses. Two years in and only 50 per cent of the bills they have introduced have been passed by both houses.
In contrast, if you look at the 43rd Parliament under a minority Labor government, we introduced 799 bills and more than 70 per cent of those bills were passed and became acts of parliament. In the second term, in the 42nd Parliament—remember the 42nd Parliament under former Prime Minister Rudd?—there was a big legislative agenda. Those opposite have no vision, no plan and no agenda. They are fighting amongst themselves rather having a vision for this nation. I think we understand why there is division taking place outside this chamber. It is because the member for Warringah is a professional opposition leader. He has no vision and no courage. He squandered the economic opportunities that were given to him by the Labor Party and he is now causing the nation damage.
This nation needs a statesman as a leader. The current Prime Minister does not have that ability, and Australia definitely deserves better.
Who would you suggest?
I will take that intervention. Obviously, the Labor Party under Bill Shorten would be able to deliver that, as we delivered so many things. As I said, we made the apology to the stolen generation. We raised the age pension with the biggest increase in 100 years. We increased the child-care rebate. We gave a boost to health funding. We brought in plain packaging for cigarettes. We introduced paid parental leave. We brought in the National Broadband Network. We brought in a boost to education funding. We brought in NAPLAN tests and the My School website, something used by parents all around Australia now. We introduced the national curriculum to the Commonwealth. We abolished Work Choices, something there was no mandate for. We brought in $4.5 billion to bring in more rental properties for low-income people.
What about the carbon tax?
We did put a price on carbon, as any sensible government should do. Obviously, this government's current scheme involves taking taxpayer money and paying big polluters which is like a tax and is not going to be effective at all. We ratified the Kyoto protocol. We increased the RET. We ended the Pacific solution. We brought in legal equality for same-sex couples. I particularly thank former Attorney-General Robert McClelland for that and wish him well in his new job at the Family Court. We scrapped the ABCC. We obtained a seat at the UN Security Council. We created marine parks. We raised superannuation—which was going to go all the way to 12 per cent. We brought in a price on mining so that in times of profit we were able to deliver—
It was a tax.
It is a tax. And it is a good thing. Mining companies should pay that when they achieve superprofits. We raised the tax-free threshold. We brought in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We brought in the Clean Energy Fund. We brought in the Gonski reforms. We instigated the royal commission into child sexual abuse. That is just some of the achievements that Labor governments have focused on. These are real achievements. Many of them are difficult, particularly in that minority government of the 43rd Parliament.
Let's lay out the achievements of the Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister—I say that at eight minutes to seven. It will not take long at all. He has doubled the deficit. That is something. There are some things he can be proud of; I think history will probably say, rightfully, that he is the fittest Prime Minister this nation has ever seen. So he will leave office with that—if he should depart tonight.
Let's look at some of the other achievements. He has ripped $2.4 billion out of the pockets of pensioners. And there are still plans to cut $80 billion from states in terms of the people who provide front-line health services and front-line education services. They want to introduce $100,000 university degrees. Already doctors in my electorate are complaining about this new sideways tax, which was like the tax that the Prime Minister complained about to world leaders when they were in Brisbane. That was his opportunity on the world stage. We had the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. What did the Treasurer do? He said: 'Hey, guess what? You should go for growth'. Wasn't that a blinding bolt from the completely obvious side of the well. 'Go for growth.' And what did the Prime Minister do? He said, 'I can't believe we can't bring in our GP co-tax'. They rolled out a miserable climate change response which betrays future generations. Anyone with children knows it is a complete betrayal of future generations. They have made it more difficult for young people to get a job, by starving them of income support for a month. And I see that Minister Abetz has committed to reintroducing that, despite the Senate rejecting it.
These are not achievements that any sensible government, any adult government, would be proud of. This government has no plan for the future, no plan for education, no plan for housing affordability and no clue where the jobs of the new economy will come from.
Labor of course does have a plan. And it is not about attacking commas, attacking full stops, attacking semicolons—all those things that this government can say that they did. I can just see those opposite in their retirement, sitting in a rocking chair, saying, 'I remember after two years in office, I took out a couple of colons, I took out a couple of commas'.
We have a plan to grow the economy, to create the jobs of the future, a plan to invest in our most valuable resource—our young people—with the skills needed for the new workforce. Labor will encourage our young people by empowering them with the knowledge they need in the digital age. Labor will boost the skills of the teachers and encourage graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to teach our future generation. Obviously with government debt now at $114 billion, that is a problem, but Labor will still be able to focus on the skills of teachers and encourage graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to teach our future generations. With an ageing population it is important that we not only ensure our next generation have the skills to succeed but also that our older generation will be equipped to maintain a comfortable standard of living in their retirement.
Currently the top 10 per cent of the highest income earners receive more superannuation tax concessions than the combined benefit of the bottom 70 per cent. That is just unfair and unsustainable.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
Member for Batman, I think you are misleading the House surely with that statement.
Labor will ensure that we have a sustainable retirement income system that delivers fairness. Labor has always been a forward-looking party, a party that gets on with the job and delivers—often without fanfare, certainly not by putting out a press release whenever we take out a couple of commas or, heaven forbid, change the word 'iPad'. We want to make this country a better place to live.
In 2004, Queensland abolished Aboriginal courts. It is a bit of jump but I am running out of time and I do want to touch on this. This is touched on in the legislation before the chamber now. Repealing legislation should be the unacknowledged day-to-day grunt work of government. It is what responsible government should do. Labor did so while we were in government but we did so without a brass band and red carpet and asking for a medal. A responsible government should ensure that there are no unintended consequences from repealing legislation. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised questions about the impact of the repeal of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975. They have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to provide further information about equivalent protections that exist for the right to equality and nondiscrimination.
Previous Labor governments have tirelessly fostered equality and nondiscrimination. Future Labor governments will continue to promote equality and non-discrimination. These values are not and never will be out of date. The safeguards that were enshrined in the legislation brought in by the Whitlam government are just as important today as they were in 1975. So it would be very regressive of the Abbott government to reverse any of these safeguards. I hope that the government has been diligent in their responsibility to ensure they are not promoting inequality or discrimination in their haste to find something— (Time expired)
Before the debate is continued on this bill I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. Having said that, the question before the chair is that this bill be now read a second time. I offer the call to the member for Ryan.
I actually enjoy these kinds of bill. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 is a very good bill. It is that very rare beast: a government bill that reduces legislation, reduces regulation and reduces the impact of government. It is fair to say that this bill accomplishes something that governments are generally not very good at; it reduces red tape. It is equally fair to say that cutting red tape was something the former Labor government was particularly poor at.
Labor these days likes to scoff at red tape reduction. A common refrain from those opposite is that we should not celebrate red tape reduction bills such as these. They believe that the repeal of unnecessary legislation occurs in the ordinary course of government. That we can all just close our eyes and wish the red tape away
In fact, for a party that still believes in the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, Labor has a laissez-faire attitude to cutting red tape that would make Milton Friedman blush. It is as if they believe in some sort of invisible hand of law making that, left to its own devices, would see obsolete, superseded and just plain unnecessary legislation just wander off the statute books.
Maybe that is why they were so poor at red tape reduction themselves. It would certainly explain why Australians were burdened with 21,000 additional regulations and 975 new or amended pieces of legislation by the former Labor government. Indeed, the Labor Leader of the House at the time used to celebrate all the extra legislation and regulation that Labor introduced to this parliament. Was Labor embarrassed about letting red tape spiral out of control? Quite the contrary—I seem to remember a certain member for Grayndler who liked to brag about the amount of legislation his dysfunctional government managed to pass in the former parliament.
The fact that Labor saw the passing of legislation as a proxy for effective government speaks volumes about what Labor stands for: more taxes, more regulation and more interference in our daily lives. It also speaks volumes that the self-proclaimed legislative dynamo that was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was so comprehensively rejected by Australians at the ballot box in 2013. Labor learnt the hard way that good government is not about how many bills we pass in this chamber; it is about what we can do to improve the lives of everyday Australians.
The coalition government understands that making life easier for many Australians means reducing the burden of unnecessary government. We understand that cutting red tape requires concerted effort by government. Labor in government talked a good game on red tape reduction but the difference between Labor and the coalition is that when we talk about red tape reduction, we mean it and we deliver. We have set up processes within the machinery of government for the first time to measure and report on the cost of regulation at a departmental and program level. This process has allowed us to determine that the cost of Commonwealth regulation under Labor was a staggering $65 billion, which is 4.2 per cent of GDP.
In response, the coalition government has made a clear commitment to reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape by $1 billion per annum. And we have not only met that commitment but exceeded it. Since September 2013 the government has announced measures resulting in a total deregulatory saving of $2.45 billion, and more than $1.5 billion of these savings have already been realised. Under the coalition government, red tape reduction is not just an abstract concept; it is achieving real benefits for Australians. Some of these benefits are readily apparent. Frequent flyers will have already noticed a relaxation of some restrictions on the in-flight use of personal electronic devices. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued guidance to allow for the expanded use of such devices in all phases of flight, provided the operator can ensure the aircraft is operated safely. In addition to the obvious personal productivity improvement to passengers, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has estimated that this will reduce compliance costs by $17.7 million per annum. For mobile phone users, legislative amendments have been made that introduce newer, lower cost ways of verifying the identity of consumers purchasing prepaid mobile phones. As well as saving $6.2 million per annum in compliance costs, this change means more convenience and greater flexibility for consumers.
The many thousands of students living in my electorate of Ryan are already seeing the benefits of improvements made by the Department of Human Services to the functionality of their website. The changes mean students are now able to advise of multiple changes to their study details in one transaction online instead of having to contact a call centre or attend a service centre. This delivers a saving of $2.7 million per annum in avoided compliance costs. Similar changes have been made for users of the myGov website. Increased online functionality has been added that now allows customers to update their details in one place rather than having to contact multiple agencies on multiple websites. This will save a further $5.4 million annually.
Red tape is commonly a hidden cost. Consumers will not necessarily see the benefit, but they will feel it in their wallets when businesses pass on the savings from reduced compliance costs. A great example is the announcement last year of the removal of a requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double trucks to fit additional spray suppression devices. The devices were intended to absorb the spray from tyres to reduce the impact on other motorists but have been shown to provide no additional safety benefit. Removal of the requirement to install these will save bulk transport operators $8.3 million per annum, with anticipated flow-through savings to distributors, retailers and consumers.
As a former business owner, I can attest to the time required to meet regulatory and compliance requirements. Particularly for small business owners, this is time that is taken away from being able to serve clients and customers or, worse and more commonly, from personal time with friends and family. It is doubly frustrating when compliance requirements are onerous and of little purpose. For home care service providers under the home care program, changes have been made that reduce the number of reports needing to be lodged with the Department of Social Services. Instead of requiring separate annual reports for each individual program and for each individual service, providers delivering multiple programs and services will be able to submit a single consolidated report at a saving of $3.9 million per annum.
This bill is the third such bill the coalition government has introduced in this place, and it continues our commitment and established record of eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens, reducing compliance costs and improving the clarity of Commonwealth laws. In the Agriculture portfolio a total of seven redundant acts will be repealed, as well as the enabling section of another act that will formally abolish the Australian Landcare Council after its functions were transferred to the National Landcare Advisory Committee in 2014. The Environment portfolio will see the amendment of legislation to abolish redundant committees and to remove inconsistent references and duplication of functions. Parts of the Social Security Act 1991 will be repealed to remove reference to schemes no longer in operation and to remove spent indexation provisions. And, in Treasury, five inoperative acts have been identified that expand the volume of the law without achieving any policy goal; they will therefore be repealed.
I am proud to be part of a government that takes red tape reduction seriously. Along with the changes outlined in this bill, portfolio ministers have also announced a suite of additional red tape reduction measures. In conjunction with autumn repeal day on 18 March this year, the Attorney-General tabled a regulation that repealed 160 spent and redundant legislative instruments from across government, as well as repealing provisions from other legislative instruments. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection also released the government's response to the independent review into the integrity of the 457 visa program. Reforms will streamline the process of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications as well as reduce time and cost to businesses by reforming sponsorship requirements. The sponsorship approval period will be extended from 12 to 18 months, and greater flexibility will be provided in relation to English language requirements. In total, the changes will result in an estimated annual saving of $29.9 million. In Social Services, important changes were made to reporting requirements under the Disability Employment Services Employment Pathway Plan. Update requirements will be changed from quarterly to twice annually and/or when a change in circumstances occurs—whichever is sooner.
Cutting red tape does not come by accident. It is only by the concerted effort of government that red tape can be reduced for the benefit of all Australians, and it is only this coalition government that can be trusted to take decisive action in this important area of public policy. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this set of bills. It concerns a number of substantive issues but also matters of regulation that have interested me for some time, and I have been a regular contributor, as I said, to some of these debates. They have never attracted this long a speaking list in the past, but I welcome that. As a former competition and regulation lawyer, I am particularly interested in the role of statutory interpretation and how regulation operates.
But I must say that I will not take from the member for Ryan a lecture such as the one she gave in her opening remarks about good government or dysfunctional government. On this of all nights, I could go to town on her comments right now. I will leave it at, 'Get a mirror.' I could say something about how eliminating red tape has transformed into eliminating a sitting Prime Minister, but I am very happy to focus on the substance of these bills, and I acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary is at the table.
The first point I want to make in focusing on the facts of this set of bills and its real-world implications is to have a look at the brochure that the government produced last week, I believe: Sticking to our plan: backing hard-working Australians. This is their two-year progress report, and in it—this is interesting—there is a section on page 10 headed 'Reducing red tape'. It reads:
The Coalition has already cut around 11,000 pieces of regulation and legislation that will reduce paperwork costs by around $2.4 billion.
I am sure it was assumed, at the time that the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 was introduced, that it would not take six months to come back and have the second reading, but the problem with this statement about having 'already cut 11,000 pieces or regulation or legislation' and about the amount saved being $2.4 billion—which a lot of other speakers have mentioned—is that I just find it difficult to reconcile it with the parliamentary secretary's own media release. On Wednesday, 18 March, the parliamentary secretary said:
… the measures in the Government's third Repeal Day built on the $2.1 billion in red tape reduction decisions announced by the Government in October 2014.
Here is the point:
As at the Government's third Repeal Day today, we have made decisions designed to decrease the $65 billion regulatory cost burden by $2.45 billion. To date we have implemented $1.57 billion of that $2.45 billion …
So they may have made decisions, but these actually have not been legislated yet. So, in effect, this statement that this government has in its two-year report card cannot possibly be true. It might have been true if you assumed that we would have gotten to this bill and these measures would have been implemented, but the reality is that we have not and they have not. If there is some reason why it is actually correct—perhaps they have implemented $2.45 billion—then that would be in conflict with the parliamentary secretary's own words. I just think it is important, if we are looking at the facts here, to get on the table the fact that, some six months later, we have not had $2.45 billion in regulatory savings implemented.
I want to quote again from the parliamentary secretary's statement on that day. The first key measure that he mentions in the autumn 2015 repeal day is:
We have had some of the speakers from the government side in this debate mention it as well. But I think we need to examine how this is actually operating in practice, because it affects all of our constituents. I go, for example, to an article from 11 August this year in The Sydney Morning Herald headed 'They're in denial: myGov users vent anger'. It talks about how this dysfunctional myGov system is actually having an adverse impact on people's lives. I will just quote a bit:
The Commonwealth government is "in denial" over the performance of its online service portals, with MyGov coming in for savage criticisms from frustrated users of the system.
Centrelink and Medicare clients from around Australia reacted with anger and disbelief after the giant Department of Human Services denied last week that there were any problems with MyGov.
It goes on:
Users of the system reacted with disbelief to the department's insistence last week that there were no systemic problems with MyGov.
"They are in denial," one reader wrote. "Once you login, throughout the system, there are messages saying some clients will not be able to access, some things cannot be done, full acknowledgement of massive problems … maybe the boss has not been onto the site."
And it goes on, in an article headed 'DHS herding people on to an imperfect system in myGov,' on 11 August again. This is a very interesting article from The Sydney Morning Herald. It has been written by someone who had been casually employed with the Department of Human Services who had been answering calls for the online self-services and the myGov help desk. What a ridiculous situation these people found themselves in, with a heightened level of frustration. It is important to have a look at the facts, not just the talking points that we have had from government MPs so far.
The other issue I want to go to, in a very similar vein, is the myTax website, or portal. In the Australian government annual deregulation report 2014, page 21, box 5, it says:
… efforts by the ATO that will allow myTax users to prepopulate online forms using existing government data will benefit users immediately and those same improvements will benefit users again next year, and the year after in perpetuity.
Again, let us look at the real-world impact. A Sydney Morning Herald article by Hannah Francis on 3 July this year, headed 'ATO under fire as myGov, myTax site problems prevent lodging of returns,' says:
Angry taxpayers have slammed the Australian Tax Office's poor preparation for tax time as "systems issues" continue to prevent them lodging tax returns three days into the new financial year.
The ATO apologised via Twitter for the problems which people said included the myTax and myGov sites running at a snail's pace, conking out on them just as they were about to lodge a completed return, or simply not loading at all.
As much as we have government members coming in here talking about time being wasted by individuals and small business, I cannot think of anything more frustrating than getting to the end of doing this whole process and then being locked out of the system. I am sure my colleague here, the member for Cunningham, would have had many similar complaints, but I have taken scores of complaints about both the myGov and the myTax portals. I could give you many more examples.
Mark Colvin reported on this in early July, and the transcript is headed, 'ATO apologises for slow running web tax filing service.' So we have all these apologies happening. The government's deregulation document, which I quoted from earlier, said that improvements would benefit users in perpetuity and that year after year it is going to keep getting better, but, as this report says:
Part of the reason for the anger, is that the ATO suffered very similar problems last year. A technical issue stopped people lodging their tax return in 2014, and the ATO apologised.
It just does not seem that they are getting any better. We can look at some of the regulation that is still having an impact on businesses. It is instructive to look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's National red tape survey for 2015. The first point to note, on page 5, is:
Results from the 2015 survey reveal that the regulatory burden remains a pressing issue for industry. The majority of respondents believe the amount of red tape has increased over the past 12 months, affecting productivity, labour costs and business expansion.
As much as we have government members coming in here and telling us how there have been improvements, we have this survey saying that people actually feel the compliance issues have increased. The survey also investigated which Commonwealth regulatory authorities were the most complicated to deal with. It showed that the most complicated one to deal was, in fact, the Australian Taxation Office. So, as much as this government wants to talk about myGov and myTax, the ACCI's research shows that the regulatory burden has increased. On page 7, the survey says:
73%—Reported that regulatory burden increased over the past 12 months.
More than 95 per cent of respondents stated they thought the burden of regulation either increased or stayed the same over the past 12 months.
So the figure is even higher if we look at not just increased burden but the burden staying the same and not improving. As much as government members want to come in and talk about all these costs being saved and consumers benefiting as a result, on page 10 the survey says:
Over half of businesses surveyed stated that they are unable to pass on any of these costs—
that is, regulatory costs—
to their customers, leaving the cost burden of regulatory compliance firmly with the business.
I also want to touch on a specific area of regulation in the Communications portfolio. It is instructive to look at one of the issues that has been mentioned in the repeal day document on page 7. This is in the portfolio summaries, under 'Amending mobile premium services regulation'. There is a statement here that there had been a number of amendments to the code and the regulatory framework around mobile premium services and it says:
… there is a reduction in the number of occasions on which mobile telecommunications companies are required to provide consumers with information about Mobile Premium Services (MPS), such as barring options and complaint mechanisms.
The department expects this will lead to a saving of about $3.8 million in compliance costs. There is a very good reason why these compliance measures were in there, and you only have to look to the website of the regulator, the ACMA. By 2008 there had been a disproportionate number of complaints compared to the size of the MPS markets. The protections were there for a good reason. There were hard regulatory and co-regulatory rules. I quote from the regulator:
The single highest source of complaints for MPS between March 2007 and June 2009 related to customers receiving a charge for a subscription service they had not requested.
A number of problems with industry self-regulation were evident, such as a lack of transparency in the supply chain … and little incentive for content providers to comply with rules.
And here is the important point: the new safeguards—that is, the new compliance mechanisms that were put in place—worked to minimise significant detriment to customers and consumers. These measures led to a change in business practices and significantly improved compliance, resulting in a 90 per cent reduction in the number of customer complaints to the TIO. So this piece of regulation worked, resulting in a massive decrease in the number of customer complaints. In the mobile premium services market, as the ACMA rightly acknowledges, apps have taken over from SMS as the primary means of content delivery. There is broad support for retaining and even strengthening the MPS but we now have a situation where the regulation worked and technology has overtaken this now quite antiquated form of receiving mobile premium services.
In the time remaining I will touch on a couple of indicators which government speakers have sought to use to highlight somehow that their deregulatory agenda has resulted in enormous spikes in business confidence and in all other economic indicators. Let us look at some of the most recent results. Even last week we saw—and I quote from Matthew Knott in the Herald'Apprentice trainee numbers plummet as cuts and failing business confidence bites'. As the member for Cunningham well knows, despite all the rhetoric from this government and whoever might be in charge of it tomorrow morning, it is a government that has utterly failed when it comes to apprenticeships and traineeships. The number of Australians starting an apprenticeship or traineeship plummeted by 20 per cent over the past year. We look then to business confidence—to the figures that came out last week for consumer and business confidence. The ANZ consumer confidence figures, which are the current Treasurer's preferred indicator, dropped 5.8 per cent in the week ending 6 September, and the Roy Morgan business confidence survey showed business confidence at its lowest level in four years. Last week we saw unemployment remaining higher than it was at any time during the GFC. There was a small fall in unemployment to 6.2 per cent, but the unemployment rate has been at or above six per cent for 15 months now. For all the rhetoric, it is important to look at the facts. It is important to look at how these decisions are impacting on our individual constituents and the facts about the state of the economy under this government.
I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and related bills. When I was running Pickles Auctions in Townsville, the toughest job was always that of the transport officer. You had to organise all sorts of things from all over the country. You had to organise cars to be shifted all over the country. You did not know whether they had wheels or whether they had accident damage; you did not know anything—and we just expected that they would turn up on time, every time. When they did, nothing happened. No-one rang up and said, 'Thank you very much. My car is here. It's out in my yard.' No-one said thank you at all. But when it did not, that was a problem.
We have just heard the member for Greenway highlight just what has to happen in relation to red tape. The parliamentary secretary in charge of this, the member for Pearce, who is sitting at the table, is inundated with ideas about how we can reduce red tape. In our first year, when we said we would come to parliament and remove a billion dollars' worth of red tape per year, we removed over 50,000 pages of legislation. We removed over 75,000 rules and regulations. We saved the economy over $2 billion. And who noticed? Absolutely no-one. That shows the size of the task we have to deal with—how much rules and regulations play a crippling role in our economy and our society.
When we first made the announcement that we would be removing red tape, I said to the then parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, 'Sooner or later, you know, we're going to have to get a bloody nose out of this. We're going to have to pick a fight with the states, because there would be nothing worse than if, say, when we repealed the carbon tax we left that area open so that state governments, through their power suppliers and pricing arrangements, were able creep in that bit extra.' The federal government has saved the federal taxpayer an absolute motza of money—a huge amount of money—by repealing the carbon tax. But we get what happened with Ergon, where they were able to change the tariff arrangements around, raise the service fee and add another thing in there, and suddenly the number in everyone's power bill did not seem to change much in Townsville.
We have done the right thing here, all the way through. We have taken the thing all the way through. But sooner or later we are going to have to make sure that we take on the states and local governments. I know it is easy to pick on the states but here I reckon there is just cause. My friends who are in local government say the problem they have is that state governments are shifting burdens of responsibility onto local governments but not giving them any remuneration or financial support to do these tasks that the state government is shifting—costs and burdens.
I suppose it gets down to the question of why we do it. We do it because the Australian people want us to do it. Every time we make a change we are leaving ourselves open to an attack by people like the member for Greenway who can only see bad things about the reduction of red tape. But every time we do these things, every time we make an effort here, it is worth it—every time we repeal a layer of red tape. Every time a business comes to us and says, 'I do not know why we're filling in this form, because it's covered over and over there. Why am I doing it?', we remove it. In some cases there may be consequences of that that we also have to fix up. But it is worth it. At every turn, reducing red tape and reducing the onerous task of filling out forms for small businesses and big businesses along the way saves them money, which gives them opportunities to employ and to give other people opportunities to grow wealth.
My parents worked in a small business. Dad started off as a stock and station agent and then we had a series of small businesses in Texas, where I grew up. We moved to Brisbane in the mid-seventies. My parents worked huge hours in the corner store and they were able to buy a house. They worked very hard for that. Most of my friends in Townsville have their own businesses either as managers of those businesses or as owners-operators.
Can I tell you the same thing that I saw with respect to my parents running a small business as I saw with every one of my friends and acquaintances in Townsville that have a small business: not one of them got into their small business because they loved filling out forms. Not one of them got into business because they loved filling out paperwork for government agencies and departments. Whilst the member for Greenway comes in here and points a finger here and points out an article or a survey there, everything we do in this space is valuable. We as a parliament should never underestimate the value of what we do in removing red tape and telling people that we are going to do it. The problem that we have, moreover, than anything else is that people come to us and say, 'It's pointless because there will always be red tape.' I go to their business and they show you the form. I say, 'Send it to me, so I can put it in front of the parliamentary secretary so that we can get this thing fixed.' Of course, they don't because they do not believe that any government is on their side, be it state, federal or local government.
They all believe that where there are massive bureaucracies, they are just there to make more rules and regulations. When Tony Abbott, then Leader of the Opposition, and today Prime Minister, came out with these announcements, 'We'll be removing $1 billion worth of red tape per year, every year,' you would have had to think to yourself, 'How can we do this forever.' As we said, we removed $2 billion worth of red tape and no-one noticed. That shows you the pile that we have to work with.
Increasingly, we will run out of redundant legislation and easy fixes whereby we can just go through these things and we will have to get into some very tricky things that government must deal with. But I go back to one of my favourite stories when it comes to red tape.
When Treasurer Joe Hockey and his wife had their first child, they got the baby bonus. It was a non-means-tested form and Joe Hockey, the member for North Sydney, was then Minister for Human Services. He said, 'I will fill out the form myself.' He got the form and, basically, all you had to do for the baby bonus, as the parliamentary secretary has said is, 'Have a baby, have a photograph and you got the baby bonus.' So Joe wrote down the first name, husband's name, father's name, mother's name, birth certificate number—all that sort of stuff—address, then he turned the page and saw they wanted his tax file number. 'Why do you want that?' I suppose if you are getting government money, then you should have a tax file number.
They wanted to know all these other things. The form was 25 pages long. He said, 'This is ridiculous. Why are we collecting all these things?' 'But, Minister, we have to make sure all these things are in there. We have to make sure we are all doing the right things.' Joe said, 'But this is a non-means-tested form.' So they came up with a special one for him. Then they had their second child. They said, 'Minister, here is the form.' It came down to only four pages. Joe said, 'This is fantastic.' He went down to question time and got a question asked of him. He was able to tell the parliament about that. Apparently, the Public Service in his department had bodgied one just to make him happy and did not actually make a real one. But then they had to follow it through. The problem is that we still gave the baby bonus away. People still got their money. We still gave it to the right people. People are still having babies and nothing happened. We did not need the extra detail. Sometimes you have to think about these things. What do we actually need to deliver here? This is where we are going at the moment. You see the portfolios through which we have joint control between state and federal governments. It is mostly health, education and transport where all the rules and regulations are. I see the member for Cunningham down there and we were speaking about apprenticeships earlier today. The federal government is a major funder of vocational education and training. The state governments are the deliverers of the service.
We did an inquiry on this matter last year. Federal governments love universities and that is what we like to concentrate on. State governments love state schools and that is what they love to concentrate on. Basically, vocational education and training was treated like the red-headed stepchild, sitting over in the corner getting no love whatsoever.
It is a bit hard on redheads!
I have redheaded children, so I can say that sort of thing. It is okay to be a Weasley. We have this crossover. The same thing with transport, when you speak to people about running trucks, the number of rules and regulations which we have to deal with across state and federal jurisdictions. And sooner or later, we will have to drive this through COAG and ensure that these things run smoother. All these things happen and all these things cost business. In a city like Townsville you are not allowed to take B-doubles through the town, so you must break down on one side of the town, drive through the other side of the city, redeposit over there and ship them all around. Or, if you are making deliveries, into Townsville you have to break it down at Roseneath, as you come in from the west, and you take single trailers all around town back to where you want to go, thus necessitating an extra four-vehicle movements per day for that one truck. All those sorts of things do not have to happen. Those are the sorts of areas where business will thank us in the long run.
We have to work with state governments to ensure that we are coming up with the right answers on these things. Local government can participate fully and ensure that the streets they are going to use to put B-doubles through have the right access points. But, again, as I said before, it is easy to come in here and poke holes in this legislation because there is so much red tape in federal government. But as parliamentarians we should be on the lookout for reducing the burden on our taxpayers. We should be on the lookout for examples of things that just do not make sense. God only knows, there are enough of them around here. We have to back this legislation because if we stop and if all we do is add complication and add layer upon layer upon layer of all the stuff that people have to do, then we just do not get anywhere.
A friend of mine saw a 100-tonne coil of rolled steel in a single-axle tipper in China, basically tied down with an ocky strap. He said, 'They have no rules and regulations.' This thing was meant to carry about 42½ tonnes and it had 100 tonnes of steel on the back of it. So we do not want to end up there!
I was riding along a highway, in China, in the back of a car and I looked out the window and I saw plate steel sitting on the back of a truck. I could see outriding pegs there to make sure it did not slide straight off, but there was nothing holding it down. That is not enough red tape. We have to understand that there has got to be just enough red tape around mine sites, around businesses where people are being told that they can only reverse their car in, because that is the rule. There is red tape there about how you can park your car on private property and about how you can access your property, but all these things do not make it any safer, any quicker or any better. Those things are why we have to challenge ourselves to make sure that we have got the right red tape, that we have good, safe places to work, that we have good, safe roads.
We are regulating people out of the opportunity to have work. There was a letter to the editor in Townsville a little while ago now about the Snowy Mountains Scheme and about how there was barely a word of English spoken up there and yet we built this great big piece of infrastructure which is still fantastic today, but, if those people turned up today, they would not get a job, because they would not be able to pass basic workplace health and safety or basic English proficiency.
We have low-SES families in my city of Townsville. Someone wanting to get a driver's licence has to get 100 hours in a motor car before they can sit for a test. It is tough enough for anybody to get their kids 100 hours in a motor car, including time at night, let alone someone who does not have a car, let alone someone who does not have the wherewithal to get those things around. And we wonder why kids are stealing cars. Is it actually making these roads safer? We do not want unsafe roads and unsafe drivers, but is there something there that we are doing by layering regulation and appearing to make it safe that has the consequence of not making it any safer at all? This is what we have to deal with, and this is why it makes sense that we have to do this. I back the parliamentary secretary. I back the Prime Minister and the entire government on this because this is really important. I thank the House.
On the day with so much fanfare from the Liberal Party where they cannot decide who should be leading them—and, of course, the Australian people have already decided that it is actually not the leader that is the problem but the whole team—we have these three bills in front of us: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. These represent the third time this government has made so much fanfare about what would otherwise be just the normal, everyday function of a government. That is why a government gets elected: to do something. What they are doing is no different from what any other government does: doing something. But this government, of course, when it finds it has actually done something, thinks it is so good that it has to tell the whole world repeatedly and make a really big fanfare about it.
What we should be talking about when it comes to lowering regulatory burdens is that it is not a Liberal thing. In fact, it is not even a Labor thing. It is simply what governments should do. It is certainly what Labor did when we were in government. We repealed 16,794 acts and regulations, but we did not make a big deal about it, because we saw it as our duty, our responsibility while we were elected. We did not go around printing a glossy magazine to shop around the country and tell everyone how wonderful we were, but that is exactly what the Liberal Party are doing. I will return to that a little bit later. But we certainly did not produce this glossy magazine, which basically created a whole heap more red tape to tell people that they had been cutting red tape.
The publication that has been produced and the accompanying material, at the time of the introduction of these bills titled the Autumn Repeal Day March 2015, can only be described as an exercise in sheer propaganda. The publication includes deregulation measures since the 2014 spring repeal day; however, the reality of the content of this publication in what this government defines as 'deregulatory measures' is quite disturbing. It was good to hear the member for Herbert. Not too many people could disagree with most of the content of what he said, because it is your ordinary conversation: 'Why can't it just be better? Why can't we just drive through there? At the time that we want to deregulate, we want to keep it safe.' Everyone is on the same page when it comes to those things, but you have actually got to do something about it.
The reason we have regulation for a lot of small businesses and a lot of business in our economy is not only to keep them safe but to make sure we have an economy. In my portfolio area of small business—on page 12 of the government's propaganda tool—has a list of programs they have cut in the industry portfolio that were actually accessed by thousands of small business people across Australia. In the name of deregulation the government goes and cuts away. They say, 'We've cut red tape,' but in actual fact they have cut assistance. They include things like Commercialisation Australia. That is not red tape. That is actually a body designed to help innovators and entrepreneurs in Australia to commercialise, which everyone in the marketplace agrees is what is needed.
What else did they cut from red tape? Investing in Experience—all those things we talk about when we say we should take trades people and others who have a lifetime of experience and help them share it with younger generations. The government decides that that is just red tape and not necessary. There was the National Workforce Development Fund and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program to make sure that those small businesses could transition in a difficult global environment—things that perhaps the Liberal Party just does not quite understand. It talks about China free trade agreements—it talks about a lot of things—but, when it comes to the real, on-the-ground, helping-Australia's small businesses and small business people, it cuts away the services. It diminishes the assistance that is available. It reduces the ability of them to compete. That is what is frightening about what they have done with these so-called—because they are not—'red tape reduction' programs.
What is even worse is that they have cut away innovation capacity programs, workplace English language and literacy programs and the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program. We heard before about apprentices, and of course in any speech you say: 'We like apprentices. We like apprenticeships. We'd like to support them.' Of course I would agree with that, but, when you actually cut the program that does it, I would say there is a real problem there.
It is just not good enough for this government to talk the language. Words are cheap for this government. They say growth is up, even though it is lower than what it was when they came to government. They say they fixed the budget, even though the budget deficit is much, much bigger and government debt is much, much bigger. They say they are creating jobs, when in reality when Labor left office unemployment was 5.7 per cent—too high. Today it is 6.2 or 6.3—way too high. But Tony Abbott just says the words 'stop the boats', 'create jobs' and 'growth' and thinks that, just by saying the words, magically these things happen or people believe it is actually the cas But of course, again, it is not. Creating a glossy brochure to prove your point is not the truth. It does not create jobs, except for perhaps the few people involved in the production of the glossy repeal-day publication.
If the government's definition of reducing compliance costs and banking the savings is to cut small business and industry programs and make it more difficult for people like apprentices and others to stay in work or to get work in the first place then I do not think they are doing a really good job. There are a lot of people who agree with me. Now most small business are starting to wake up to the fact. Certainly industry is and most Australians are. As I started by saying, while the Liberal Party might be in the throes of deciding their leader—because they cannot decide who their leader ought to be—the Australian public have already decided. They do not like any of them. They do not like the team. Forget who they have as a leader; they actually have a problem with their whole team. That is the real problem here. Forget about the fact that investment in skills and training programs—including the National Workforce Development Fund, which was listed on page 12—totalling more than $1 billion was cut by this government. They have cut away at this, and then they wonder why unemployment has gone up. They might ask the question, 'Why is growth down?' Why is unemployment up?' If they are supposedly saving money, why have the debt and deficit gone up? When they came to government they said, 'There is a budget crisis and emergency. Send in the fire brigade.' Why is it that today, when it is much worse, they have turned the fire-engine back? The fire-engine got to the fire, Tony Abbott won the election, but he calls them up and he says, 'Don't worry. The fire's not that important anymore. Let it burn.' And, boy, has it burnt since, and, boy, has it gotten worse.
Growth is down at just two per cent. The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, keeps talking about a magical 'three' number, three per cent, but just saying the number does not create it. Just talking about jobs does not create them. You have to do a bit more than just talk. But at every turn this government has been a jobs destroyer—at every opportunity. There is no point having a bonfire of regulation burning when all you are doing is burning the economy. No jobs were created out of these bills—not one. No growth to the economy was created out of these bills. Not one small percentage of growth was created out of these bills. We all know what happened when the government tried to water down many of the protections, and I am quite sure that no-one from the government wants to be reminded of it. However, the savings attached to those so-called reforms were estimated by this government at $198 million. Never mind that the proposed reforms watered down consumer protections and put at risk lifetime savings, all in the name of compliance savings. The government is quite happy when it talks about saving for itself, for government, or saving for compliance, but it does not talk about saving for consumers or saving for jobs. That does not seem to be as important.
Of course, there is a difference between necessary regulations and unnecessary or redundant regulations, and we will hear that. That will be the mantra from government speakers, and of course that is what all governments should be doing. There is a very large difference, but the problem is that the government do not understand the difference. They do not understand the difference between what is redundant and unnecessary in terms of regulation, what is outdated and no longer applicable and what is there to actually underpin and support our economy and underpin and support jobs.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, when he spoke in this place, referred to one particular measure in the omnibus bill that will result in over $41 million in so-called deregulatory savings. This proposed amendment pertains to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995. The principal function of the measures in these bills is to remove acts that are spent or redundant. Again I say this is the normal business of government. This is what governments get elected to do. You do not pat yourself on the back for turning up to work every day. This is probably why the Liberal Party and this government have a problem. They think the fact that they even bothered to turn up this morning is actually a badge of honour. They are going to have bills in here congratulating themselves for being in government: 'We want to hand out some awards to ourselves for turning up to work today.' That is not how our economy works, and that is not what happens in the real world or the real market.
We have heard time and time again the global figure that the government use when claiming their amount of deregulatory savings. They use this figure of $2.45 billion, but let us put that into context. Under the Seamless National Economy reforms that were carried out by the former Labor government and conducted largely through the Council of Australian Governments, just the first 17 reforms that we introduced reduced business costs by $4 billion every year. That is a saving that the government now enjoy. So the work we did in government is now a saving that this government enjoy. But these were savings that were agreed on by the states and territories. These were savings that were agreed between the federal and state governments because they were actually good for the economy—real savings that actually delivered real outcomes. In 2008, under Labor, the COAG agreed to implement regulation and competition reforms under the National Partnership Agreement to deliver a Seamless National Economy, and 36 separate reforms were covered by this national partnership, comprising 27 deregulation priorities, eight areas of competition reform and a reform to regulation-making and review processes. All of these deregulation measures worked in unison to deliver better outcomes for the states, for the economy and for small business and workers.
These were the sorts of difficult, tough reforms that require thought, planning, action, negotiation—all the things that this government cannot do. It is really good at just picking up a redundant old piece of regulation. It has asked all the departments and department heads, 'Go and find anything we can burn and get rid of—where there is a full stop or a comma in the wrong place.' That is the extent of these so-called reforms. It is really where there are blank pages, like page 348AB, and other amendments that are completely blank. It just removes those then counts up the number of pages and says what a great job it has done. It just does not amount to anything. This is the problem. It just amounts to naught. We have a government that continues to put these things forward, actually damages the economy, and then says it is doing a great job.
A very good reform, for example, that we did, was the standard business reporting, which commenced on 1 July 2010. It offered Australian businesses, accountants, bookkeepers and tax agents a quick and simple way to lodge reports with government. The Productivity Commission estimates $500 million of potential benefits from this reform over nine years. It was a Labor reform, something that actually adds value to the economy, reduces a real burden for small business and helps industry and small business to create something, to make something happen. It is not just some fanciful bonfire of burning bits of paper. I could never quite understand the fascination that the Prime Minister seemed to have with just burning regulation. This sort of concept around burning books just seems to me to be a really unusual way to describe things or think about things that government does.
It was also the former Labor government that introduced the national business names registration service for a single online registration process, removing the requirement for a small business to register in each state or territory. We took it from being basically a paper based system to an online, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, single port for small business. That was good reform. It was opposed and demeaned by the Liberals and the Nationals all the way through, and now they are so happy with the outcome and, in fact, it is so successful that there is talk of it being spun out, outsourced and privatised because it is such a successful operation.
Labor also introduced the superannuation clearing house, again enabling small business to get on with their main task of doing what they are good at and taking the burden of paperwork and other things further and further out of their hands so it is just not necessary.
The story that I am painting here today in terms of these bills is that of course Labor always welcomes deregulation. We always welcome getting rid of redundant, unnecessary, red-tape burdens, but let us just not make such a fanfare over what in the end amounts—like most of the things that this government has done—to absolutely nothing. It does not help small business. It does not actually create anything that is real or concrete.
Let us just put a test out there for the government speakers. Let them, when they are making a contribution here, tell us about the great programs of reform around red-tape reduction: national business names registration, the superannuation clearing house, COAG agreements and negotiation and reforms—real reforms that deliver real savings to the national economy that create growth and jobs. It was over $4 billion every year when Labor was in. All they can count on their side is having set a torch to some redundant pieces of blank paper.
I too rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and the cognate bills, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) Bill 2015. I join with my colleagues in commending the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for taking on this very important job in recent times of reducing or removing unnecessary and excessive regulations across all the government portfolios and practices. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Pearce, in the chamber. I know his passion for deregulation is enormous. His thirst for it is unsurmountable.
I was just listening to the previous speaker. He does not realise that the work extends to not only getting rid of existing regulations but also preventing unworkable regulations coming into the parliament. I can give you an example where I took one of the mechanical contractor associations to meet with the parliamentary secretary, and within the space of a couple of months the prospective legislation was changed to enable great savings to the members of that particular association in the construction industry, which I thank the parliamentary secretary for. I know that the association which you assisted on those matters, which brought them to your notice, is very appreciative of the work you did as well.
The parliamentary secretary has an important job because it is not just a matter of the dust being brushed off a few parliamentary acts and their being thrown in the bin if they have not been utilised in the past decade. This is a systematic weighing-up process. It is a matter of weighing up whether the regulations are necessary, duplicative or unutilised or could be amended to reduce their burden. This is not an easy process, but it is one that this coalition government committed to conduct twice a year from 2014 to 2016 to reduce the $65 billion regulatory cost that every Australian was forced to bear and cope with under the previous Labor government. To put that cost into greater perspective for my opposition colleagues so that they might finally understand how red tape can hinder businesses and families each day and every day: this $65 billion regulatory cost is 4.2 per cent of GDP.
The reason we saw this regulatory cost placed on the Australian economy was not that those opposite were implementing or reforming policy initiatives that required stringent regulatory oversight. No, they were not. The reason that every Australian was forced to waste their time filling in more paperwork or was forced to spend more time on the phone to process even the simplest applications is that those opposite have never understood the concept of best practice or domestic competitiveness, let alone the apparently elusive concept—elusive for those opposite—of global competitiveness.
Let us put aside for a second the regulatory burden that those opposite placed on every Australian. What is even more mystifying is that those opposite used all the slogans in history to say that they wanted to compete globally, but instead they implemented a pile of regulations that reduced any chance that Australian businesses had of competing on a level playing field with their international counterparts. You can see that still today with their opposition to the FTA with China. In fact, to explain this in the most basic terms, all I have to say is seven words. I can add to this that it is the anti-WA tax, the mining tax and the carbon tax.
I ask those opposite: could you have taken a bigger swing at our international competitiveness or our small businesses' ability to prosper? Why crush the hip pocket of every Australian slowly? Next time you come up with a policy, just tell us that you want to strangle productivity so that we can all throw in the towel early rather than being forced to navigate your regulatory minefield before finding out that, even if a business does comply with your excessive regulations, nobody wants to invest in it anymore. Why would they when, in the time those opposite were in government, they introduced 21,000 new regulations that every one of us had to adhere to? We heard the previous speaker saying that you just have to turn up, and you should not slap yourself on the back for just turning up for work. Well, they should not be slapping themselves on the back either for the 21,000 regulations that they introduced during their time in parliament, during those terrible six years of Labor government that we had.
As I have highlighted in this place before, what greater regulatory burden could those opposite have placed on families, on business and on industry than the productivity-strangling carbon tax, a tax that alone constituted 18 different acts and 1,100 pages of regulation and legislation? I know how fit the parliamentary secretary is, but I doubt that he would be able to carry that into the chamber on his own. He would have to use a trolley like you see the silks using, going down St Georges Terrace—one of those little trolleys.
Lucky I never got to be a silk!
But you had the potential! You had the potential!
It is shameful that those opposite continue to stand in this place and try to diminish the work this government is doing to remove burdensome regulation and to support every Australian through our red tape reduction program when 21,000 additional regulations is their economy-crushing legacy, hindering business, weakening our economy and putting this country on the fast track to debt and deficit. That, colleagues, is the Labor way—more bureaucracy, more regulation and cash splashing because those opposite believe more in politicking than in being a good, economically responsible government. Now, as with the debt and deficit mess those opposite left the coalition with, this government is also cleaning up their regulatory mess.
We are scrapping the 1,100 pages worth of additional regulation and legislation that the carbon tax alone created, and we have set a target to remove $1 billion worth of red tape every year. We did this because, as members on this side of the House know, it was hurting Australians in all sorts of unassuming ways. One example of this, in my electorate of Swan, is the additional costs from things such as electricity prices, which were already hurting families in their personal energy bills and were also being passed onto consumers by a range of service providers, including local governments. I highlight that this is not because local governments or any other service providers wanted to; they simply had no choice so that they too could stay afloat in the harsh economic climate that those opposite threw at them.
Thankfully, by scrapping the carbon tax, these additional costs have now been removed. In fact, in a letter I received from the City of Gosnells in my electorate of Swan, the city states that the two largest areas of direct impact from the carbon tax for the city were on their waste disposal fees and the cost of street lighting. Now, thanks to the removal of the carbon tax, each of the city's more than 106,000 ratepayers, according to the 2011 national census, will save from a $9 per tonne reduction in waste disposal costs and a reduction of $110,800 for street lighting per annum. I also joined with the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Baldwin, in my electorate of Swan soon after the carbon tax was scrapped to welcome a free day of public transport. I am sure the parliamentary secretary would have enjoyed the free transport on that day as well. I am sure members opposite are straightaway thinking, 'Well, nothing in this world is free,' but, in this case, the Western Australian Liberal state government, who recognised just how much of a burden the carbon tax had been on Western Australian taxpayers, created this free public transportation day to compensate passengers for the increase in fares that they had already paid when the carbon tax was introduced. I see the Deputy Speaker, Mr Ewen Jones, smiling. I am sure it is something that he would have liked to implement in Townsville as well, in his great electorate of Herbert.
According to the WA state government, thanks to this coalition government's scrapping of the carbon tax, Perth's public transport users will also now be enjoying fare reductions of between 10c and 30c, depending on the journey they travel. So, as members can see, this government's policy initiatives are achieving their objectives: to remove excessive regulation, to remove duplication and to remove policies that those opposite implemented, which do nothing but strangle productivity and take every Australian's hard-earned money out of their pockets.
We have not just implemented this red tape reduction agenda blind, either. To ensure every piece of regulation which constitutes this $65 billion in compliance costs is appropriately reviewed, this government has been working with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which I take this opportunity to commend for its work to date. We have also established deregulation units, which, as the parliamentary secretary stated, are specifically 'tasked with identifying and driving red tape reduction across the Commonwealth', and these units now exist in every portfolio. Not only do these deregulation units exist; this economically responsible government has also implemented a system where every cabinet submission must be accompanied by a regulation impact statement to ensure that the concept of balancing the need for regulation with its impact is at the forefront of every minister's mind when developing policy initiatives.
On 18 March, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister tabled this government's inaugural Annual deregulation report, which highlighted how this government's red tape reduction program is supporting our economy and, by extension, every business, every family and every individual in many different ways. It highlighted that, as a result of last year's two repeal days, this government implemented $2.1 billion worth of regulatory compliance savings, which is more than double that of our original $1 billion target. On the same day, the parliamentary secretary also introduced the cognate bills before the House, which, I am pleased to say, have once again put this government on track to meet this $1 billion annual target. As a result of these cognate bills, 890 acts and 160 legislative instruments will be scrapped, reducing this red tape burden by an additional $305 million. Within 18 months, the government have scrapped the burdensome carbon tax and the hit on industry under the poorly designed mining tax, and we will have systematically reduced this $65 billion regulatory burden by $2.45 billion once all the measures are fully implemented.
To put this in a different perspective, this is 10,300 legislative instruments and 2,700 pieces of unnecessary or duplicative acts of parliament which will no longer be wasting Australians' time. We are achieving this through a variety of provisions in the cognate bills which will see legislation amended or repealed across seven government portfolios. This will assist in further reducing the regulatory burden currently faced by business, families, individuals and the community as a whole. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill alone will amend or repeal 14 acts across portfolios, including the repeal of the Meat Export Charge Act 1984 and the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964. The government is repealing these acts because, like other provisions outlined in these cognate repeal days bills, they are now redundant. In the case of these meat export bills, this is because the inspection of meat and meat products for export was overhauled in 2011, yet its legislative instruments have remained on the government's statute books for the last four years. A similar example of a redundant act which will be repealed by this bill is the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991, which has had no industry councils established under it for over a decade.
One key deregulatory saving in this bill that I would particularly like to highlight for members is the introduction of additional functionality for myGov users. As members would remember, in the first year of the government's cutting red tape agenda, we created a net red tape saving of $156 million through the myTax initiative, which significantly reduced the amount of information users need to supply to the Australian Taxation Office, or ATO, when using this online system. Now, through the provisions in the cognate bills before the House, an additional $5.4 million in annual compliance savings has been created by allowing customers to update their details in one place using the myGov Tell Us Once service. Similarly, $48.5 million in annual compliance savings will also be created, if the cognate bills before the House are passed, through improvements to the ATO website.
All members in this place would have noticed a difference on the many flights they regularly take to arrive in this place, which has also ensured further savings are found as part of the government's deregulation agenda. This is through the lifting of restrictions on the use of personal electronic devices during flight take-off and landing. So as much as I can attest to this being a benefit to passengers, it will also contribute $17.7 million toward this $305-million net red tape saving for 2015 so far.
In the education portfolio, significant savings have also been found by creating greater efficiencies in the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN, which was first introduced in 2008. As members would know, under the NAPLAN program, in May of every year students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 take part in a written assessment. From 2017 the delivery of this testing will, however, be changing under this government's efficiency program through the development of an online national assessment platform. This will allow students to complete NAPLAN tests using a computer or another electronic device such as a tablet and will create annual compliance saving of $9.7 million.
It is clear that the systematic process of removing burdensome red tape and green tape, and changing the mindset of both the public and the private sectors is only in its infancy but I am proud to be part of a government that took the first step towards achieving this aim. The removal of $1 billion in red tape each year is this government's target and is a target, which, under the guidance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am sure will be reached again this year. To achieve this though, we must first pass the cognate bills before the House and the others. I commend the bills before the House and I commend this government for having the foresight to deliver this deregulatory program for the benefit of every Australian.
The debate that is presently before this House, in many senses, really is the story of this government writ small as perhaps it should be. I ask members present to think about the fanfare that accompanied the introduction of the first of these omnibus repeal days, the first much lauded, much vaunted red tape reduction day the better part of 18 months ago. The Australian people were promised a bonfire of red tape reduction. The rhetoric then was even more grandiose than it has been this evening. But what have we got? At the end of the day, the only bonfire we have seen is a bonfire of vanity—vanity of government members, especially the then parliamentary secretary the now Assistant Treasurer. I think his second reading speech from 19 March 2014 on the occasion of the first red tape reduction day bears rereading because it sets out the scale of the claim made through this process that has not been matched by its impact, in stark contrast to the deregulation agenda conducted properly in a concerted manner by the former government which removed unnecessary regulation without fuss, without fanfare but with regard to the purposes of law-making and the needs of our economy and of our society.
Again, I remind those present and anyone listening—I understand some may be engaged in other debates this evening—to have regard to the claims set out in the second reading speech made in March 2014 by the then parliamentary secretary—the now Assistant Treasurer—and to think about the claims that were made and how they have been matched in reality. Again, this is a sense of government writ very small and, indeed, a diminished sense of our future.
But it is really interesting to see beyond this, how the step-through occurred from that first bill to its second iteration in October of last year, where again we saw very grand promises made by the then parliamentary secretary. There were proud boasts of 'no longer will we deny the men and women of Australia an opportunity to employ more people, to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation and, at the end of the day, to boost productivity'. Let us think about how those claims have stacked up. We have unemployment at over 800,000 for the first time in nearly 20 years. We have a crisis in productivity with multifactor productivity lagging at deeply concerning levels. This was described as an absolutely brilliant result for this government. Well, as the government debates its future again, I wonder what a less than brilliant result might have been.
So I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. The purpose of this bill is to abolish defunct bodies, consolidate previous bodies and repeal spent and redundant provisions and acts. This bill is, of course, introduced with some complimentary legislation—namely, Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. These are, for the most part, reasonably worthwhile initiatives of the parliament. They simply do not match the description that they have been given nor the rhetoric that accompanies them.
Government members should not take my word for it; they should look at the haste with which this urgent agenda has been pushed through the parliament. Introduced some six months ago, we now find ourselves finding our way towards consideration of these urgent pieces of legislation. We know what a crowded legislative agenda it has been. It does not just speak volumes as to the absence of any vision for Australia's future on the part of this government; it speaks volumes as to its lack of anything to say in terms of a legislative agenda whatsoever.
Essentially, like those two previous omnibus repeal days, this bill is just a bit of PR exercise with a bit of ideological dressing, another exercise in this government wanting to be applauded for successfully putting one foot in front of the other. Well, today of all days, perhaps we can understand that. Perhaps that is fair enough. It all seems very hard for government members at the moment. The path to recovery that they charted out in opposition has met with extreme resistance, to say the very least, in government.
It is telling that the fanfare that was started off 18 months ago has diminished 12 months ago and seems less evident today. This is just something that they are going through the motions with now. Perhaps this is much too late; nonetheless a tacit acknowledgement by government members that simply abolishing long defunct bodies or repealing spent and redundant provisions in acts of parliament is not quite as spectacular nor as transformative as the government in its very, very brief salad days liked to imagine.
Indeed, something that is very interesting in these bills is that the vast majority of provisions in the bills before the chamber do not have any deregulatory savings attached whatsoever. I was interested to look through the explanatory memorandum, which says of the bills before the House that there are no financial implications. Now, that does not make it a bad thing; it just sits rather uncomfortably with the sort of rhetoric we have heard from the previous speakers and, indeed, from government speakers throughout this debate. The rhetoric does not match the reality. This is the ordinary business of government dressed up as something that it is not by a government that literally has nothing to say to the Australian people, a government so wrapped in its own internal conflict that it cannot pay attention to the issues that are facing Australia. That is clear today. It was clear a couple of weeks ago when I thought we were to debate this bill, but the government spent six hours having an internal debate and decided to vacate themselves from the legislative field on a matter of great importance to many, many Australians, as you would be aware, Acting Deputy Speaker Jones.
I do note that while the explanatory memorandum states that there are no financial implications attached to these bills, the parliamentary secretary who was just in the chamber tried half-heartedly in his contribution to this debate—which was quite some time ago, I add—to suggest otherwise. But I will return to that in a couple of minutes. I have spoken on the previous omnibus repeal days this government have introduced. Frankly, I do find it difficult to understand why they have been going through the seasonal charade of activity in this regard. It does not appear that the Abbott government—if it is still the Abbott government, as I am making this contribution—are looking at another spring omnibus repeal day, but perhaps we will see.
At the end of the day, these sorts of low savings should be applauded if they can be identified—and I look forward to that aspect of the debate from government members. The repeals of overdue, redundant legislation have achieved much heat in terms of the parliamentary contributions of government members but very, very little in the way of substance. So I turn to a couple of examples from the substantive bill itself. Others have touched on these matters, but I do think they bear repeating, having regard again to the sorts of grandiose claims we have heard from government members.
This bill repeals seven acts in the agriculture portfolio, all of which are spent and redundant—for example, the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974, which enabled the Commonwealth to enter into arrangements with the states for dairy adjustment programs, has been repealed.
You would not know a dairy cow if you fell over one.
I am unlikely to, Parliamentary Secretary, and I certainly would not be likely to fall over a dairy cow affected by this regulation because the period of approval for a new agreement lapsed in 1977, quite some time ago. Of course, that means no agreements are currently in place and all payments have been made. I am sure the parliamentary secretary, unlike me, is very well versed in dairy cows and presumably is well versed in that fact as well. The act is redundant, and it has been since shortly after I was born.
In the Treasury portfolio, five acts have been repealed, all of which, clearly, are spent and redundant. It is a good thing; not worth making a song and dance about except when you have nothing else to have a song and dance about, Parliamentary Secretary McCormack. By way of example, I turn to the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959, which related to an increase in Australia's quota in the IMF and an increase in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It has been repealed. Given that these transactions have already happened quite some time ago, of course, the act is redundant. Similarly, in the social services portfolio there is the removal of a number of indexation provisions that are spent, that have passed their date of effect. As a result, of course, they are no longer needed in legislation.
At the end of the day, this is a Seinfeld bill. It is a bill about nothing. It is busy-making for those members opposite who want to be seen to be doing something because they have no positive agenda worth speaking of. So when big decisions are being made about the direction of Australian politics, here we are debating repealed, redundant and spent provisions.
There was much reference from the previous speaker, and I imagine from other government contributors to this debate, about the record of the Rudd and Gillard governments in this regard. I say again: let's compare our record in repealing genuinely unnecessary regulations with the record of this government. More to the point, in respect of the bill before the House, let us think about the acts I have just been talking about. These were not provisions of the previous Labor government that have been repealed; they go way back in history to the fifties and the seventies. You are not dealing with business left over from the previous government; you are dealing with relics from the Menzies era. Perhaps today, of all days, that is an appropriate motif in this parliament, Parliamentary Secretary McCormack.
I do turn to the modest and mundane savings that have been claimed to result from the passage of this bill. Labor are, of course, always keen to look at sensible savings mechanisms. We did this in government; we will continue to do so in opposition. We did not and we will not need special days to celebrate doing the ordinary business of government; we will continue to get on with the business of government on behalf of the Australian people, and I hope an election comes soon to give us the chance to make that case. There are only two items in this bill that are said to have any deregulatory savings. Of course, I refer to the explanatory memorandum, which I think is a reasonably authoritative source in this regard, but I go to the claims as well.
The first relates to the removal of the requirement to sign a statutory declaration when submitting a compensation claim under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995. Instead, a claimant is able to declare the information provided is true and correct using existing forms. This is estimated to generate $41-odd million in deregulatory savings. The second relates to the granting of greater access to aggregated information under certain social services legislation to the public where that information does not disclose information about a particular person. This will enable greater access to the information for use by researchers and the general public. This is estimated to generate—wait for it—$3,000 in deregulatory savings. I guess, Parliamentary Secretary, if we look after the pennies—
Every cent counts.
Just imagine on that basis what the $158 million for the plebiscite on marriage equality could be used for, if this parliament instead did its job and got with that bit of law-making business. Just imagine: if $3,000 is celebrated—raise the rafters—what would they do with $158 million?
The total amount of claimed deregulatory savings—claimed, not actual—is less than 10 per cent of the $475-odd million in deregulatory savings that have been reported since the last so-called repeal day, which was around about this time last year, at the very best. Again, there seems to be a clear law of diminishing returns with these repeal days. Perhaps this might just be the last such day, one way or another.
The Assistant Treasurer in his second reading speech stated the necessity of there being 'dedicated parliamentary sitting days for the repeal of legislation'. Such pomposity, such pretentiousness! Since when do sitting days in this parliament need to be dedicated to doing so little? This could have been done in half an hour. The vast majority of the measures in the bills before this House are purely procedural in nature. And no-one disagrees with them. Measures that were described in the parliamentary secretary's statement—such as: the use of electronic devices in flights, which has been touched on in most contributions from government members; removing duplicative record-keeping requirements for psychologists; or the requirement that trucks have spare spray suppression devices—are not being discussed as part of this bill.
I note the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee conducted an inquiry into this momentous piece of legislation. The substance of the committee's report runs to a whopping two pages. That is this in a nutshell. Regardless of what government members say, that sums up the ambit of this bill and indeed the ambit of this government's ambition. Whatever happens in another place in this building today, this will be the mark by which this government is assessed.
Commonwealth regulation is estimated to cost the Australian economy approximately $65 billion annually, equivalent to 4.2 per cent of our national gross domestic product. Whilst a degree of regulation is necessary to ensure the orderly functioning of our society, there are many cases in which overregulation is stifling the economy with bureaucracy and red tape.
The business community has been making the case for years that streamlining our regulatory system is essential for greater productivity and to make the Australian economy more competitive internationally. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry issued a press release on 6 May earlier this year following a series of deregulation announcements in the budget, with the Chief Executive Officer, Deidre Willmott, quoting as stating:
The CCI campaigns against excessive regulation at all levels of Government that stifle new growth.
… … …
Governments at all levels must be vigilant in their fight against red tape and continuously look at ways to cut unnecessary regulation.
Although this is not a high-profile issue, the majority of Australians have a vested interest in this debate, because most Australians are shareholders in large businesses through their superannuation funds or are involved in small business. Unnecessarily high compliance costs serve to reduce the long-term investment returns flowing to members of superannuation funds, resulting in less income in retirement. Therefore, this is an issue which ought to concern the public.
As the Australian economy becomes increasingly connected with international economies through globalisation and free trade, our competitiveness increasingly matters. It is true to say that Australia's economy is more heavily regulated in comparison with those of the emerging economies in our region, putting Australian businesses at a strategic disadvantage. The coalition government realises this and is taking appropriate action to ensure that the Australian economy can be more resilient and compete internationally on a more level playing field.
Accordingly, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across nine portfolios. These measures are simple and non-contentious and are, therefore, more appropriately included in an omnibus bill rather than in separate stand-alone bills. The reforms are wide-ranging, across government departments—including the key portfolios of agriculture, Attorney-General, communications, education, employment, health, human services, immigration and border protection, industry, infrastructure and regional development, social services, and Treasury. Deregulation units have been established in every ministerial portfolio using existing internal resources.
The Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015—will repeal spent and redundant amending acts that were made between 1980 and 1989. The measures within these acts have taken effect and they do not contain any other substantive provisions. The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 will repair minor errors in Commonwealth consolidated acts, and repeal spent or redundant acts and provisions within. Allowing spent or redundant acts to remain in force on the Commonwealth's statute books makes it more difficult for businesses, individuals and community organisations to ascertain which regulations apply to them. Instead of being able to quickly and easily find and access the regulations which they need to comply with, they must sort through outdated and unnecessary regulations to determine whether they still apply.
These reforms are designed to repeal some 10,300 legislative instruments and 2,700 acts of parliament. The Commonwealth is working with states and territories to reduce red tape across all levels of government. Many regulatory instruments fall within the area of responsibility of state and local governments, so it is essential that all tiers of government cooperate to reduce red tape. For example, the bureaucracy in the planning approvals process affects many development projects within my electorate, affecting job creation and economic development
To cite an example, there are planning regulations limiting the use of commercial premises which permit real estate agents, accountants, lawyers and financial planners to operate from premises because they are classified as 'office uses' but prohibit psychologists or podiatrists from operating from the same premises because they are deemed as medical practitioners and have arbitrary parking requirements. This has resulted in multiple vacant tenancies, which are not in the community interest. By comparison, in emerging economies this level of unnecessary regulation would not apply.
Small businesses account for 96 per cent of all Australian businesses, employing 4.5 million people and producing $330 billion of Australia's gross domestic product. The following deregulatory measures contained in the current package of reforms will be of benefit to many small businesses in my electorate of Moore, whose collective interests are represented by the Joondalup Business Association and the Wanneroo Business Association. For example, implementing a revised pay-as-you-go system for small businesses will allow certain businesses choosing to use this new method to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis, resulting in annual compliance savings of $2.7 million. Similarly, reforming the 457 visa program by streamlining the process of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications for skilled workers, reforming sponsorship requirements to reduce the time and cost, increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses and providing greater flexibility in relation to English language testing and skill requirements is projected to result in annual compliance savings of $29.9 million.
Another measure removes the requirement for heavy-vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices, predicted to achieve annual compliance savings of $8.3 million for the transport industry, in which, as the holder of an MC, or multi-combination, licence, I have an interest. Improvements to the Australian Taxation Office website are expected to assist an estimated six million users to find relevant information more readily, resulting in expected annual compliance savings of $48.5 million. The ATO's myTax initiative reduces the amount of information 1.4 million users need to supply to the ATO when filing their e-tax forms each year, to result in a forecast net red tape reduction of $156 million. The proposed reforms are designed to make identity checks even easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing new prepaid mobile phones, which is expected to save $6.2 million in compliance costs annually. These measures are part of the coalition's mission to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. Other changes to the entry thresholds for PAYG instalments and expanded private sector access to the government's Document Verification Service will result in combined net red tape savings of $194.4 million. In addition, the coalition government has introduced a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals, resulting in net red tape savings of $426.3 million.
By contrast, some 21,000 new regulations were introduced by the previous Labor government. Regulation should not become the default option for policymakers. Poorly designed and inefficient regulation imposes unnecessary costs on business. The total deregulatory saving in reduced compliance costs since the election of the Abbott government in September 2013 is estimated at $2.45 billion. Under the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion—equivalent to 4.2 per cent of GDP. As a result of these measures, the $65 billion regulatory cost burden will be reduced by $2.45 billion. To date, the government has implemented $1.57 billion of the $2.45 billion in projected savings, with $880 million in measures yet to be implemented.
In the building and construction industry, the proposed reforms remove the costly and time-consuming requirement for builders to be certified to Australian Standard AS4801 or equivalent prior to applying for scheme accreditation to undertake Commonwealth funded building work where they are in a joint venture with an accredited company and operate under the partner's scheme accredited systems. In the agricultural sector, reforms to biosecurity arrangements provide greater flexibility to manage biosecurity risks. Examples include removing the requirement for tail tags for cattle destined for the European Union and improving access to export terminals for grain exporters. The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and Korean free trade agreement will also deliver benefits for Australian farmers and the agricultural sector.
In terms of improving access to government social services, Centrelink claimants will be able to check the status of their claims online, reducing the time wasted in direct follow-up interventions in person at a Centrelink service centre or by telephone. Similarly, students who receive government payments will be able to change their details online without being required to contact a call centre or attend a service centre, which is expected to save $2.7 million in costs. Furthermore, implementing additional functionality for myGov users to allow customers to update their details using the myGov Tell Us Once service to obtain secure and convenient access to online services from a single account and one set of credentials will result in annual compliance savings of $5.4 million.
In the current era of increasing competition brought about by globalisation it is important for the government to implement policies that will help contain the cost structure of business. Research shows that regulation costs Australians approximately $65 billion annually. Everyone bears this cost, as working Australians are shareholders in business through our superannuation funds. As mentioned earlier, high compliance costs translate into lower returns on investment and lower returns for the members of industry superannuation funds. These deregulation reforms are much needed to promote greater productivity, make our exports more competitive and attract investment into Australia. In order to take advantage of the economic opportunities presented by free trade agreements, the government must ensure that our regulatory system is efficient and flexible enough to permit Australian industry to prosper. I commend the package of reforms to the House.
I have been listening to the speakers on both sides since the debate began earlier tonight on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015, and I just have to comment briefly on the member for Moore's contribution, in which he clearly outlined a number of things on his wish list. But I would just like to point out that none of that is actually in the bills that we are discussing tonight. In fact, of the five or six speakers on the government side so far, in a list of some 30 that will be speaking on these bills, none have actually spoken about these bills—not one. There are 30 speakers on the government side on these bills and 10 on the opposition side. That means 40 speakers. That is somewhere between eight and 10 hours of debate on these bills, and I can bet—not that I do, actually, but if I were a betting person I reckon I could bet—
Surely you bet!
Actually, I do not.
Really?
No, I do not, but I would be prepared to bet—
Bet on the coalition next time!
Order! This is not the coalition!
that nobody on the government side—not one of those 30 people—will actually get up and talk about the bills before the House, because, quite frankly, they are not actually worth talking about that much.
You can never get your money back!
These are essentially the basic work of government. Repealing legislation that no longer has any effect, that is no longer relevant and that has essentially been expired in terms of its purpose for 30, 40 or 50 years does not warrant 30 government members getting up here at 15 minutes apiece and talking about it. I guess that is why they are talking about anything else rather than these bills. Given that the government does not seem to have any other legislation at the moment, I suspect they are on orders to just fill up the time, or it is going to become very clear very quickly that the government actually does not have any agenda at all.
These kinds of bills, which essentially repeal redundant legislative instruments, are standard. In the last year of the Labor government, in 2013, the government commenced the largest and most comprehensive exercise ever undertaken to remove redundant Commonwealth legislative instruments. We removed a third of our regulatory stock where provisions were spent or otherwise redundant, and legislation passed enabling the removal of 12,000 redundant Commonwealth legislative instruments. That is more than the government aims to do in its three-year term. In spite of all of the fanfare about its repeal days and the bonfire of regulation and red tape et cetera—this amazing rhetoric—Labor did more in one year than the government is planning on doing in three. And did we make a song and dance about it at the time? Well, no, because all we were doing was removing from the statute books legislation which no longer had a purpose and had been redundant for a long, long time.
Oh, you were such a good government! Such a good government!
Thank you for saying that, Parliamentary Secretary.
Facetiously.
But being a good government has nothing to do with this sort of housekeeping. This is the kind of housekeeping that every government does. Most governments have other things that they want to promote as their achievements. Most governments have other things on which they would be in here with 30 speakers. Most governments would have something to say other than, 'Oh, we're repealing legislation which no longer has any purpose.' Most governments would—not this one, and I can understand why, because in many ways this is one of your achievements.
I am actually going to spend the next 11 minutes talking about the bill. If the government want to debate this bill for some 10 hours, I think it is about time that someone actually talked about what is in the bill so the people of Australia can see what the government think is so important that they are going to spend 10 hours of parliamentary time on it—something that is so important that they want the world to know all about it. Let's actually talk about what it is.
The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 includes amendments and repeals, and the member for Moore did say it covers agriculture, environment, health, Indigenous affairs, social services and Treasury. It does include all those areas, but not the areas that he spoke about. It repeals redundant acts. There are two things that it does other than that—and I am going to go through the redundant acts. It changes the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 to remove a requirement that compensation recipients submit a stat dec; they sign a form instead. That is actually a simple change. That will make, according to the government, around $41 million in deregulatory savings. We have doubts on this side that that is the right number, but that is fine. Instead of signing a stat dec for your workers comp, basically you sign the form. That is fine. There is a second one which makes it easier for the public to access aggregate data relating to social security et cetera, and that change is estimated to lead to $3,000 in deregulatory savings. So they are the two elements of these three bills which actually do things other than repeal legislation which no longer has a purpose. Everything else in this bill repeals stuff that is no longer relevant.
I am sorry that you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker Jones, because I was actually going to refer to the speech you made earlier. I am still going to; I am just going to be gentler than I otherwise might, because I know that as the Deputy Speaker you have to—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Well, I am speaking about the bill, so he would find it hard to find a reason to do that. The member for Herbert, in his speech earlier, said that the government was starting with the easy stuff—abolishing the redundant stuff, the easy stuff—and eventually, at some point, it would have to start getting to the harder stuff. I would think that you get into government to deal with the hard stuff. I would not think you would actually try and get into government in order to do the stuff that someone can do by cleaning out a cupboard, which is essentially what is happening here. I would say to the member for Herbert and the government members, if you want to deregulate, if you want to save the economy from red tape, if you want to do the work in that area, you actually have to do the work. You actually have to sit down with the states. Most of our regulatory issues are not just to do with one level of government. They occur because, over a century, we have accumulated competing bills in various jurisdictions. It is really hard work.
Labor, in government, worked with the states through COAG towards what we called the Seamless National Economy. There were 45 reforms put forward by that COAG Reform Council. By the time we lost government, 31 had been completed or largely completed and eight were partially completed. It was estimated by the Productivity Commission that just 17 of those 31 completed items saved business $4 billion each year in improvements to productivity and they increased GDP by $6 billion. That is $4 billion in savings each year from 17 of the 31 reforms that we introduced. And we have a government bragging and having repeal days—giant stunts—because they believe they can cut costs by $1 billion a year. It was $4 billion a year from Labor, because we did it the hard way, and it is $1 billion a year from this government. And the government are nowhere near the target yet, given that they have not passed last year's legislation yet, and the legislation we are debating today was introduced six months ago, so there is clearly no hurry. If you actually want to make it, you want to get your skates on. But the government are aiming at $1 billion. We achieved $4 billion. And they are bragging. Today there are 30 speakers on this bill.
Let us look at the repealing of the acts. In the Agriculture portfolio, there are zero deregulatory savings—none, not a bit. The Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 act provided financial assistance for the purpose of dairy adjustment programs, allowing agreements to be made with the states to make payments. But that agreement came into effect in 1996, and it lapsed with the approval of a new agreement in 1977. So it has been dead since 1977. Can I suggest to the member for Moore and several other speakers who have said that, by repealing old legislation, they save business from having to go through all the statute books and read the legislation to see whether or not it applies to them: no-one is reading this act to see if it applies to them. There are zero deregulatory savings, even according to the government.
Then there is the Domestic Meat Premises Charge Act 1993. The Department of Agriculture deregistered the last two meat establishments that this act covered on 12 June 2009. It is dead. It has gone. It has finished. It will never be used again. No-one is trawling through it to find out whether or not it applies to them. It applies to nobody. The Meat Export Charge Act 1984 was enacted to impose a charge on applications for the inspection of export meat, but cost recovery arrangements are now set out under the export system, so it is just not used any more. It is covered elsewhere. The Meat Inspection Act 1983 was enacted to provide for the domestic inspection of meat for human consumption, but the states and territories now carry out those activities and it is covered under their statutes. Again, no-one is trawling through this act to see whether or not it applies to them. There are zero deregulatory savings.
The Primary Industry Councils Act 1991 was enacted to establish industry councils, but they have not existed since 1993. Again, there are not a whole stack of councils out there looking through this act—not one. There are 30 government speakers on this stuff. No wonder they are not speaking about the bill. It would be a very boring 10 hours if they all actually got up and spoke about this bill, I can tell you. Abolition of the Australian Landcare Council is items 8 to 16 of the schedule. There are a lot of items in this schedule. The plan was to consolidate the Australian Landcare Council and the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee into the National Landcare Advisory Committee. There are currently no members in the Landcare Council. There are quite a few bills that get abolished because of that change. There is also the abolition of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee. It has not met since 2010. There is the abolition of the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee, and the membership of that committee lapsed in 2007. Again, this is an enormous benefit to small business! I can just see small business asking, 'Would you please abolish the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee act because they have not met since 2007 and never will again?' You can imagine all those small businesses just cheering at how much money you have saved them!
Mr McCormack interjecting—
'Wildly,' says the parliamentary secretary. That shows how much he knows small business. For protected area management plans, items 7 to 12 of the schedule remove duplicate exemptions covering Heard Island and McDonald Island. They are actually covered in the marine reserves now. Again, there is no need for that act.
Schedule 3 covers the Health and Human Services portfolios. This is the one where there is a possible saving of $41.4 million because the statutory declarations are no longer required. That is probably one of the things that I might have expected someone on the other side to mention, because it does actually make a change. Again, it is not a change that warrants 30 speakers and 10 hours of parliamentary time, but, as I said, no-one on that side is actually speaking about the bill.
Schedule 4 covers Prime Minister and Cabinet and Indigenous affairs: zero regulatory savings again. The Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with States) Act 1973 was replaced really by clauses in the Public Service Act 1999. It has not been relevant for 16 years. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 was superseded by state laws, and the Queensland laws which superseded it have been repealed. This is really interesting. I am so glad I get to speak on this bill! Item 3, section 16 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 will be made ineffective when the government repeals the actions that I mentioned two minutes ago, so it is a follow-on act.
Schedule 5 covers social services and use of protected information. This is a change that will save a total of $3,000 in deregulatory savings. Again, I have not heard anyone on the government side talking about that, but there are $3,000 in savings. Part 2 repeals spent indexation provisions from the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and the Social Security Act 1991. These provisions have passed their date of effect. The bill repeals the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme and the Retirement Assistance for Sugarcane Farmers Scheme from the Social Security Act 1991. These schemes closed in 2001 and 2007 respectively but they are about to be repealed. How wonderful that is.
Great—about time.
Yes, it is great. It is just a question of whether it warrants 10 hours in the parliament—whether this is what government thinks is so important that it is going to debate it for 10 hours in the parliament. It is quite extraordinary. I cannot imagine any government in the past having so much space in its legislative agenda that it would allow 10 hours in the main chamber to debate this. The bill repeals spent savings, transitional and application provisions from the Social Security Act 1991. They have no effect, as they deal with circumstances that can no longer occur under the act—wonderful stuff. What a government! No wonder they are so proud of this wonderful repeal day stuff. Treasury has no deregulatory savings—none, zero. It is a lot of hot air and no substance. (Time expired)
The other side can trivialise a lot of this stuff. Yes, there is a lot of cleaning out the cupboards, if you like, but there is also a lot in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2015 that is going to save money. The opposition would not understand that saving paperwork and bureaucracy is actually a net benefit to small business. Given their background, they have no understanding whatsoever of small business. Let us look at the size and scope of the achievement that we are working on here. So far, with just three repeal days, we have cut $2.45 billion worth of red tape. That is equivalent to every man, woman and child in this country putting $100 into the national piggy bank. Compare this to the other side in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd days, when federal regulation was bleeding us to the tune of about $65 billion, or more than four per cent of our GDP. This government is not just about saving money, though; it is saving time. There is less time spent in filling out paperwork, less time in waiting in queues and less time in searching for information. As a result, we are building on things that really matter: more competition, more innovation and more productivity.
Today I specifically focus on four industries where we are streamlining processes and cutting red tape: exports, small business, tourism and aged care. Exports are critical to our country's future prosperity and for jobs. The government is pursuing free trade agreements and cutting red tape in our export industry. In Far North Queensland, sugar is a major export. I heard the previous speaker talking about sugar. The Cairns bulk sugar terminal celebrated a milestone earlier this year. In March, for the first time, 52,000 tonnes of high-polarity Brand 1 raw sugar was loaded onto a vessel and shipped to Japan. That is the weight of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I visited MSF Sugar in Gordonvale soon after with our trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb. CEO Mike Barry spoke about future potential. This new export was made possible because of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement that came into force on 15 January this year. The agreement was one of the many measures that the government took to boost Australian trade with Japan. Now we have also now signed a free trade agreement with Korea and we are certainly going to sign one with China, in spite of the nonsensical scare campaign that the other side has been running. We are looking forward to new opportunities now that we have liberalised Australia's trade with these three major trading partners.
Some great news for our export industry is the introduction of a mandatory port access code of conduct for grain export terminals. All bulk wheat exporters will now get fair and transparent access to port terminal services regardless of who owns the facility. We have also removed the need—this may sound a bit insignificant and they may laugh about it on the other side—for cattle to have tail tags if they are being exported to the European Union. Eliminating the tag system will save cattle producers over $1 million per year—back into the pockets of cattle producers. The other side would not understand. They would not know what a cattle tag was. They probably do not even know what a cow is. Nevertheless, that is something that we consume and export in large amounts. The requirement to have tags was a labour-intensive exercise for businesses, and we certainly have better ways now of animal management prior to trucking.
The 2015 budget is helping small businesses invest more, grow more and employ more through significant tax cuts and tax deductions for every asset valued up to $20,000. My small business community has certainly welcomed this legislation being passed through both houses recently. The red-tape cuts are also very welcome news. We have improved the pay-as-you-go instalment system by changing the entry and exit thresholds, meaning that certain small businesses will no longer have to interact with the PAYG instalment system. Businesses that choose to use this new method will only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis. Removing this unnecessary regulation will save Australia $2.7 million annually in compliance costs. Again, that is not a small cost for small businesses.
We are cutting red tape in the 457 visa program to streamline processing of sponsorship, nomination and applications. Owners like Mr Dev Rao, who runs Marinades Indian restaurant in Cairns, will see a more user-friendly 457 visa program. Dev has had an ongoing saga with 457s. The opposition may find this rather amusing, but nevertheless there is a cost to business. One of the 457 visa rules is that his chefs can only renew their visa if they pass an international English language test system. Dev's situation is unusual because it is not possible for him to find his chefs already trained in the kitchens of the Sheratons or the Hiltons. The cuisine at Dev's restaurant is very specific: it is the traditional, authentic taste of food stalls and family restaurants in the back streets of Calcutta. His chefs do not have the educational qualifications of mainstream chefs. They speak enough English to look after their own affairs but, because they are working in the kitchen, they do not have that level of interaction with people. That is why they struggle with the English language test. If a chef does not pass the test, Dev has two choices: either he sends them back to India or pays them an annual salary of $92,000, plus nine per cent superannuation.
Dev pays this salary and super because if the chef left it would have a huge negative impact on his business.
This has been going on for over eight years and Dev says, 'English language requirements are punishing for small multicultural businesses.' And I said to Dev: 'We have heard you. This government is reforming the 457 visa program.'
Debate interrupted.
What extraordinary times we live in! I was going to stand tonight and speak about the Barangaroo redevelopment in Sydney and the very important role that former Prime Minister Paul Keating is playing in preserving public access and public space in Sydney. But it is pretty hard to go past the fact that in 15 minutes or so we might have a new Prime Minister—maybe in half an hour, by the time they have counted the votes.
It is not the salesman that is the problem; it is the product that they are selling. It does not matter whether it is the member for Wentworth or any of the others sitting on the other side there taking over, sitting up here at the dispatch box, they all sat around the cabinet table that made the same decision to cut $80 billion out of health care and education, to introduce $100,000 university degrees and to cut pensions. They first had a go at the full-rate pensioners and then they went for the part-rate pensioners. But they all sat around the two budgets. In the words of the current Prime Minister the first one was about savings and the second one was about confidence. These budgets actually doubled the deficit, increased the debt and, in the case of the second budget, smashed confidence.
There is some talk that the Minister for Social Services might also be a contender for the leadership, not just the member for Wentworth, Minister for Communications. When you are talking about the Minister for Social Services, that would be the guy who is now saying that 80,000 new mothers should lose up to $11,800 from paid parental leave a year. That would be the guy, who, having failed to get through changes that cut the pension for full-rate pensioners, has now gone after part-rate pensioners, the very same part-rate pensioners who live in very large numbers in his own electorate, with pensioner couples losing as much as $14,000 and single pensioners losing more than $8,000. The member for Wentworth has said, in his own words:
I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget. Every single one.
But of course he also said:
Every single member of the Government supported every element in the budget—of course.
That statement was as late as February this year. So every member of the government supported the budget. What have those budgets delivered? Unemployment up; debt up; deficit up; tax up, at higher rates than we have had since the Howard government; cost of living up; and growth down.
By contrast, even during the worst of times, with the challenge of the global financial crisis, Labor managed the economy better. They actually had lower unemployment during the global financial crisis than this lot have managed at a time when things have been going so much better.
It is worth also saying, because the member for Wentworth seems to be the frontrunner at the moment, that this is a minister who has overseen a $26½ billion blow-out in the cost of the NBN. I heard the press conference today. He talked about how he wants to grow the future economy and prepare us for the changing world and all the rest of it. The most important infrastructure investment we as a nation can make to prepare for the way the world is changing is to invest in decent broadband infrastructure. This is the communications minister who has delivered slower internet speeds to households at a higher cost, a $26½ billion blow-out for a second-rate NBN that was supposed to be rolled out to homes and businesses within three years, by the end of 2016. And now that has more than doubled to seven years, by the end of 2020. And it will be more expensive and slower! He is also the same communications minister who promised no cuts to the ABC and SBS budgets, but has in fact cut more than half a billion dollars from the ABC and SBS budgets. More than 200 people have lost their jobs and hundreds more are still threatened. Regional railway stations have been shut down, with little more than a whimper from National Party colleagues. Programs have been cut, the ABC's much-loved drama and kids content have been slashed, and production facilities have been shut down, devastatingly local communities. That is the record that the member for Wentworth wants us to judge him on. Well, we are quite happy to judge him on that record of supporting this government's budgets and his slashing of the ABC.
If that is what the people of the member for Sydney's electorate are really interested in, then she believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden! Tasmania, on the other hand, is indeed open for business. Tasmania and, in particular, my electorate of Lyons has turned a corner and, once more, we are open for business. Employment is at the highest levels since December 2008. Unemployment is down to 6.6 per cent, from 7.4 per cent this time last year. It is not that long ago under Labor and the Greens that it had an eight in front of it. New company registrations are up 12.3 per cent, since 2013. That is very pleasing news for those innovators within the private sector. There is innovation everywhere!
We have turned the corner. The economic story no longer reads of depression and investment anxiety; rather it is one of confidence and excitement with business investment increasing every day. If we look at it sector by sector in terms of agriculture, one of the major drivers of course within our state's economy but also nationally, we see that the NAB monthly business survey: August showed that Tasmanian business confidence was sitting at an indicator level of plus 12 points, compared to the national average of plus one point.
For example, in the past financial year Tasmania exported $28.1 million worth of cheese to the world. That is why Tasmania is the third largest producer of milk in the country and we are fast catching New South Wales in that respect. The free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea are particularly important to my state. A hundred and eighteen million dollars worth of other milk products have been exported. This has been supported, of course, by the expansion and the investment made with the tranche 2 irrigation schemes. There have been $56½ million of fruit and vegetables in part because of the South Korean and Japanese free trade agreements that we have already concluded. I could give an example of Tim Reid, who is exporting cherries to South Korea. When we took the 24 per cent tariff off that particular market, he went from about 10 tonnes to 180 tonnes in a matter of 12 months.
There are 2,134 agricultural businesses that exist within my electorate of Lyons, and they represent over 30 per cent of the economic activity. This is why the free trade agreements are so important to our state in terms of China, Japan and South Korea. There was $147 million of salmon exported last year from Tasmania. The 12 per cent reduction in tariffs for the Chinese free trade agreement over four years would indeed be welcome for that sector, but that does not even compare with the 15 people cent that will be removed from rock lobster, another important industry in my electorate, and 14 per cent from abalone at the same time. Tassal in my electorate have just recently expanded their waste product at Triabunna in my electorate on the east coast.
One of our largest exports of services, indeed, is tourism, and Tasmania is no different. I think of the confidence that is returning to that sector, where we are seeing investment in places like national parks, where we will soon have more accommodation, and the beautiful Mount Field. I met with a constituent up at Port Sorell only last week. He runs a bed and breakfast business and, because of the increasing demand, is looking to invest in further accommodation up in that part of the world. Indeed, 197,600 international visitors visited Tasmania in the year ending March 2015, up 28 per cent year on year. Tourists are now staying longer and have increased their stays by seven per cent. Whether it is the east coast, Port Arthur, Mount Field or Cradle Mountain, all of which are in my electorate, indeed it is a good news story.
But perhaps the best news story of all and an example of confidence that is returning is the construction sector, where 17,000 Tasmanians are employed and in the past 12 months 2,460 new dwellings have been under construction, up 36.4 per cent on the previous 12 months. We are seeing confidence returning to a state that laboured long and hard under a Labor-Greens government in previous years, and long may it be the case.
On 28 August I was a very proud Melburnian. I was proud of the spontaneous response of the city I live in to Operation Fortitude, the suggestion that the newly established Australian Border Force would take part in an operation in Melbourne's CBD and would speak with 'any individual we crossed paths with', warning that officers would be checking visa details. As I said, there was an immediate and spontaneous response from the Melbourne community. Melburnians rejected this attempt at division. Shortly afterwards there was a statement issued by the commissioner of the border force which said the announcement had been clumsily worded and misconstrued. These words carried a very hurtful, divisive and dangerous meaning, as did the exercise. I am glad the exercise was rejected, but that does not end this story. This is a troubling issue.
I am also very proud of the diversity that makes up the Scullin electorate. I see the member for Parramatta at the table, and I am sure she feels similarly about her electorate. Likewise the member for Holt. For me, the peoples that make up Melbourne's north are our greatest strength, and the way in which cultures from across the world come together, share in one another's experience is simply a beautiful thing and something I am so glad my children are able to experience as well as a good thing for me.
But I am concerned that this fabric might be fraying. I am concerned locally but much more broadly at some of the messages that are being injected into our national debate. In this regard I read with some interest the Scanlon Foundation's most recent report on mapping social inclusion. At many levels this is an affirmation of the great success of the multiculturalism I spoke of moments ago. It shows that perhaps we have the highest current level of positive sentiment towards immigration in the Western world. This is something to be celebrated but not something to take for granted. We see still strong levels of support for multiculturalism in the survey; 84 per cent of respondents agreed that multiculturalism has been good for Australia, a higher level than in some recent surveys.
But there are also negative trends—some consistent across the line of the survey. The survey asks, 'Have you experienced discrimination based on your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?' and a major change from year to year was the marked increase in the reported experience of discrimination. I feel this in some of the conversations I have been having in the community. I think back to a visit I had two weeks ago with year 6 students, many of whom spoke of their experience with racism directed at themselves and at their peers. I think about a recent citizenship ceremony that I attended at the City of Whittlesea at which many new citizens admitted the great pride they felt at finally becoming Australian citizens but expressed their concern at the way in which they and their neighbours had been made to feel across some of these recent public debates. I think, of course, about the government's attempt to repeal 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the sad fact that again it took a concerted community response, led by the Australian Labor Party, to turn this around, to restore faith in these communities that we are one Australia and will not be divided by reason of race, colour or creed.
I think also of what should have been a great Australian moment—a moment of generosity—when the government announced that we would take an extra 12,000 refugees from the awful crisis in Syria. But the suggestions from many government members that this intake would be selected on grounds other than pure need in accordance with obligations needed to be refuted at the highest levels of government, and this did not happen. Our responsibility in this place, if we are concerned to maintain the great strength of Australia and its people, if we are to stand up for the great achievement of modern Australia—its multiculturalism—is to show leadership. I see in the communities I represent great leadership at a local level. I think of the interfaith networks and I think of so many community organisations reaching out, encouraging, working against division and working to build bridges of cultural understanding, but it cannot just happen locally. What we need in this place is political leadership that rejects any attempt to divide Australians, that is sensitive to the diverse communities that make up modern Australia and that will stand up for each and every one of them.
Before I begin my speech, I want to make a few brief comments in relation to the previous speaker's speech. He talked about calls from government backbenchers for the government to prioritise Syrian Christians in the refugee intake we are bringing in from that humanitarian crisis. I proudly say that I am one of those who said that. It is unbelievable and just shows the height of political correctness and absolute stupidity, when everyone can see and acknowledge that the Christians in that area are one of the most persecuted groups—they have targets on their foreheads for ISIS to come in and kill them—and yet we cannot say we want to take Christians in to protect them here in Australia. That is absurd. That is political correctness gone mad. I am proud to say that I was one of those backbenchers saying to the government that we should focus on Syrian Christians.
What I want to talk about today is outside this bubble down here in Canberra, where we focus on internal politics perhaps too much. I want to talk about North Queensland. North Queenslanders are doing it very tough right now, and Labor's vote in this place last week to support extreme Green attacks, through the courts, on jobs and on North Queensland workers was just another slap in the face for us up there in the North. They voted against the government amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which would have ended the extreme Green litigation against job-creating projects such as Adani's Carmichael mine project, which quite recently was delayed in the courts.
North Queenslanders work hard. They work in industries such as mining, mining servicing, farming, fishing and a range of manufacturing industries. We work hard for the money that we earn up there. The Greens have never really supported those people because of the industries they have worked in. Labor once did support those people, but now they have abandoned the workers that they once stood up for. They certainly have abandoned them when it comes to the Adani Carmichael mine, because when that mine gets approval—and I am sure that within the next month the mine itself will get another approval, along with the railway line and the Abbot Point expansion—it will then be subject to another two years worth of Green litigation. We had a bill here that would have dealt with that and would have ended Green litigation against that job-creating project. But the Labor Party voted against it, and they are going to vote it down in the Senate no doubt. They will side with the Greens, their mates there, to vote it down. That could potentially mean that that project will go begging. I do not think Adani will sit around for two years more while this project is delayed in the courts, when they need the coal exported out of this country by 2017. That will be thousands upon thousands of jobs that could have been created in Central and North Queensland, where we are reeling from the downturn in the Bowen Basin. We need an upswing, and the Galilee Basin was set to deliver that.
We have had Labor in this place defying other Labor leaders and former leaders around the country to blindly support a union-led campaign of lies about the job-creating China free trade agreement. I raise that point because Labor always say one thing about being for the workers, yet they come here and act against them. We saw that with the Adani project and we saw that also with the fact that, while they are out there saying foreigners should not take Australian jobs, they also have a policy to import 30,000 foreigners each year, or roughly that amount, with no labour market testing. That is what they want the refugee intake to go to. Labor in Queensland promised to end 100 per cent fly-in fly-out operations in Queensland within their first 100 days of government. It sounded great. Again, it was more Labor talk about supporting the workers. But 222 days later they have done nothing. They have had a review, but we are still waiting for fly-in fly-out to be banned. The Labor Party in reality do not protect workers anymore. They protect union corruption and union thuggery, and we have seen that through the royal commission. They have lost the support of ordinary workers and lifetime Labor supporters in my electorate of Dawson because they only represent themselves, and they stand for absolutely nothing.
On 17 August I spoke in the Federation Chamber about the activities of the Uber service and the concerns of taxicab owners and drivers about this service, which they categorised as unregulated, virtually unsupervised and, frankly, illegal. It is fair to say that I have received a fairly strong response from Uber, Uber drivers and their supporters, which was, as you would probably appreciate, fairly negative. However, I have been overwhelmed by the flood of support around the country for those who drive and own taxis and support taxi services. On 3 September this year I had a very intense meeting with representatives from the Victorian taxi industry, led by Sandy Spanos, President of the Victorian Taxi and Hire Car Families association, and Mr Jacob Revzin, Vice President of the Victoria United Taxi Industry. They and others who attended the meeting, including an ex-Uber driver, raised their concerns about Uber and called for the Uber app to be banned in Australia, as it has been in France, Spain and two cities in India.
After some initial support around the world for the concept of Uber, we have seen protests against this service in Germany, India, Spain, Colombia, France, Italy, China, England, the US and now Australia. Residents and local taxi drivers have become increasingly concerned with Uber's illegal operations as well as reports of incidents involving Uber drivers. Taxi industry representatives tell me bluntly that they have no problem with Uber providing a taxi service in Australia provided that they play by the same rules and abide by Australian laws. But their view is that they are not abiding by these laws, and accordingly they have called for the uberX application to be banned in Australia.
Sandy Spanos, President of Victorian Taxi and Hire Car Families, is extremely concerned about Uber—concerned to the point of damaging her physical and mental health. Sandy's story is that she has abided by Australian laws and paid taxes, yet she sees an unregulated competitor, Uber, which she and many others who have contacted me from around the country see running its service outside Australian laws and regulations in an illegal manner. Ms Spanos has invested heavily in her taxis and has planned on this investment funding her retirement. But with the rise of Uber—which exists outside the laws, as I said—she has seen her investments in her taxis become virtually worthless.
Ms Spanos states that taxi drivers across Australia have to pay licence fees of up to $24,000, pay full taxi insurance of $5,000, pay for work cover, pay GAP insurance, pay full taxi registration of about $2,700, pay for vehicle signage, pay for taxi cameras, collect GST and submit BASs, when Uber drivers do not incur any of these expenses and other things that are required for taxi drivers. It obviously requires a lot of money to run a taxi service. Uber drivers are not subjected to the same costs as taxi drivers, who are now, as a consequence of this unregulated competitor, running at a loss. It is not a fair playing field. They cannot compete with a company when it is existing outside the rules.
The representatives from Victorian Taxi and Hire Car Families have also noted—and this was particularly striking in the representations they made to me—that many taxi drivers come from our migrant communities. Disappointingly, they have lost faith in state and federal governments, which have not, in their words, cracked down on Uber. In some cases, I am told, taxi drivers in their despair have taken their own lives because of this situation. Others, due to the stress that they have suffered, have experienced depression and other serious medical conditions.
This is an extremely unfortunate situation. We as governments and members of parliament need to listen to the concerns raised by the Australian taxi industry and appreciate the pressures on taxi owners and drivers at present. The representatives from Victorian Taxi and Hire Car Families are calling for action to be taken quickly to bring Uber to account. I heard of incident after incident. Person after person, literally across the country, raised their concerns about Uber. I do not understand, given that they have been taken to court, their status and the fact that they do not pay tax. There is a view that they should be taxed. For example, the Australian Taxation Office has investigated them and has been taken to court, so there cannot be a proper investigation as to whether or not they should pay GST.
This is a ridiculous situation. There cannot be two laws in this country, one for taxi drivers and one for everyone else. That is not the way that a democracy is supposed to exist. We have to fix this situation. We all have to work together so that Uber is actually lawfully run in this country.
On Friday morning, another milestone was reached in the wonderful nation-building infrastructure project, the Melbourne to Brisbane rail line, otherwise known as Inland Rail. The implementation report that was put down by a committee chaired by the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, was presented to Minister Truss along with the business plan for this iconic project. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I do not need to explain to you the great importance that this project has for Australia. It is 1,700 kilometres long. It has the ability for every train trip to remove, I think, something like 130 B-doubles from the Newell Highway, which traverses my electorate. The fuel consumption for that amount of freight per tonne is about a third what it is for road transport. The time compared to rail now going up the east coast is being cut by about 10 hours.
Not only will this be a great project to ease the freight congestion on the highway on the city-to-city intermodal route but, for inland New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, there are great opportunities. As the cities back up into the mountains and places like Sydney back into the Blue Mountains, it is getting incredibly difficult, and the land in those areas is getting incredibly valuable. As the urban encroachment comes in on industrial areas, moving manufacturing and logistic hubs to the inland adjacent to this rail line will become a strong possibility. It will become an imperative that will make good business sense.
We will see that places like Parkes, Narromine, Narrabri, Moree and Toowoomba will all have great opportunities to attract new businesses to those areas. Primary producers, agricultural producers, grain producers and the miners who produce minerals and coal which come from inland New South Wales will have different opportunities to get to different ports. We will see, along with the iconic airport that was constructed by the Wagner family in Toowoomba, the possibility of linking the rail line into that airport, and air-freighting fresh produce into Asia on a daily basis will be a reality.
This project has been talked about for some time, and there have been a couple of false starts, quite frankly. But the reason it is going to succeed now is that we have real commitment from this government. Warren Truss was able to secure $300 million. That is being spent now. As you go out in western New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, there are people out there—surveyors, environmentalists and community engagement officers—doing the preliminary work that this project will need to go. We have great support from the leadership of this country. It is just a matter now of finalising a plan for finance. It is going to cost approximately $10 billion.
It will be close to a 10-year proposal. But, if it is done in stages, we will see a benefit much sooner. For instance, grain producers in the Moree-North Star area would benefit immediately from an upgrade of that track back to Narrabri to hook into the Hunter Valley line and to the Port of Newcastle. Already, farmers in my electorate are seriously negotiating to purchase their own train and cut logistics costs by 50 per cent in delivering grain to port.
This is a game changer. This is the Snowy Mountains scheme of the 21st century and a visionary project that we have been waiting for for a long time. A milestone was reached last Friday with the implementation report being handed to the minister. It is now a matter of getting those reports finalised and getting on with the job.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30
The troubles the government are having at the moment are very interesting. It casts one's mind back to some of the things they are on the record saying about leadership. We all know that this building this morning is all about leadership. I had a bit of a look at some of the Twitter commentary on Buzzfeed 'politics' today. They have some very good quotes from leading government members when they were in opposition. I think my favourite is, 'Leadership chatter is all about a government sacking itself for its own poor performance'. That was Scott Morrison on 23 June 2010 on Twitter.
We all know what this country is crying out for: a government that is focused on jobs, on building the economy, on infrastructure, on providing universal health care, on looking towards the challenges of the future, on giving our young people a fighting chance, on looking after those in regional and remote Australia, on tackling disadvantage and on advancing Australia. That is what this country wants. It wants a government focused on the people of Australia.
What have we got from the government? I will tell you: we have a government that is focused on itself and on its own internal dynamics. Barely a day goes by when you do not read in the paper some quote—anonymous—about how the Prime Minister is going to face a challenge. But let's go back in time and look at what Joe Hockey said. He said: 'Wow, another press conference about the Labor Party. That change really worked. Will the Australian people get a look in?'
Scott Morrison again, 'I mean, stability and consistency is on the coalition side'.
We're seeing that aren't we!
We are certainly seeing that today! Another quote from Scott Morrison, this time quoting a constituent, 'Same smelly feet, different pair of socks'. He could be talking about the present situation.
Bruce Billson said, 'People right around this country, whether they own their own business or not, look to Canberra and see no adult in charge'. That is certainly the case now.
And of course Tony Abbott, 24 February 2012 on Twitter: 'We are ready. I lead a stable and united team, a contrast to the other side'. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government said it would be stable. That was a fundamental promise that it made to the Australian people. And what do we see in the run-up to the Canning by-election? Instability, chaos, backbiting, infighting. That is what we see from this government. (Time expired)
The Northern Territory Pride of Australia Medal for 2015 finalists were announced yesterday. The finalists include 25 strong and selfless people in the community, across 10 categories. These awards have been running for 11 years across the country. This year's 'people's choice' award has been introduced, giving the community their say on their local hero. As I said, 25 finalists were announced yesterday in the NT News. The winner of the people's choice awards—the new award announced—will receive $5,000. To have your say on who your local hero is, go to ntnews.com.au/prideofaustralia and make your vote count.
The finalists in the Care and Compassion category are Marieanna Hammond, from Alice Springs; my good friend Jack Hamilton OAM; and Julie Rankin, who works tirelessly in palliative care. In the Child of Courage award category Kourtney Rimmer, who committed to cycling and running an incredible 100km, raising $3,300 for Autism NT, is the finalist. In the Community Spirit category are the active Janette Jewell; the amazing Andrew Warton, who raised awareness of suicide risk and prevention through his charity, Kayak 4 Youth; and Irene Mellios, who raised $250,000 for Territorians battling cancer.
In the Courage category there is Belinda Marshall, for raising money for the Leukaemia Foundation after her own struggle with this terrible disease. In the Environment category there is Dr Michael Guinea, Andrea Ruske and Mandy Hall. In the Fair Go category there is the ever energetic and passionate Romola Sebastianpillai, Nitesh Pant and Carine Kapiamba Tshimbu. In the Heroism category there is the NT face of the Bring Them Home campaign, Bob Shewring, and Steve Martz. In the Inspiration category there is Dr Rama Jayaraj, Jedda Trueman and Clare Labowitch. In the Outstanding Bravery category there is Lee-Anne Stallan, Nick Stevenson and Owen Whittaker. In the Young Leader category there is the inspirational and incredibly talented Abbey Holmes, Alyssa O'Donnell and Dominic Sloane.
I am really looking forward to finding out who our local hero will be in the people's choice, but also the winner of each of these 10 categories. The ceremony will be on 7 October. Please, let us get behind these fabulous Territorians and support them. Go to the website: http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/pride-of-australia.
I rise this morning, with the rest of Australia, reeling at the news that in 2015 we have lost the lives of 62 women—62 women killed by someone they once loved and someone who claimed to have loved them. We in this parliament must do all we can to create a country where women and children are safe in their homes and in the community.
I stand today to recommit personally to that end, and I applaud the work of the Victorian Minister for Women, Fiona Richardson, and Premier Daniel Andrews in conducting the Royal Commission into Family Violence. This finished its first hearings in August and we are set for final hearings in October. I join Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in calling for immediate and national action and a national response, because, as former Governor-General Quentin Bryce said, 'This is a wake-up call not just for Queensland but for the nation.' We need an immediate national response. I note Bill Shorten and Labor called for a national round table in 2014 and called for it again this weekend. They will be writing to the Prime Minister this week asking for that round table to occur.
I am left asking why the Prime Minister has not acted. We all heard his response on the weekend:
Any man who raises his hand to woman is weak and gutless
I do not think anyone disagrees with that sentiment but it is an inadequate response. I suggest our Prime Minister—our self-appointed Minister for Women—is perhaps ignorant of the causes. Violence against women and children is about power and control. The cause is known and has been long identified internationally: it is unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women. The cure is promoting equal and respectful relationships between men and women. The cure is gender equity.
I call on the Prime Minister to symbolically and practically address this. He can begin with a public apology for standing in front of cameras surrounded by sexist-slur placards against our first female Prime Minister. He needs to address gender representation in his own party and his own cabinet. He can reinstate funding for front-line services into this terrible scourge in our community, and he needs to join Bill Shorten and Labor. He needs to call the round table and then he needs to listen, and listen carefully, to the advice of the experts. He needs to hear and he needs to heed. Our Prime Minister needs to act now, Deputy Speaker, before more women's lives are lost and children's lives impacted terribly.
The current Leader of the Opposition has left us with many great quotes. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, the one that stands out to me was during an interview on Meet the Press June 2005 when the free trade negotiations with China first commenced. He expressed his scepticism and he said, 'What is it that we are going to sell China in the future that we are not selling them now?' Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give an example of what: an orange.
With the Leader of the Opposition's great foresight back in 2005, we were not selling a single orange to China by way of export. Last year, we exported $30 million worth of citrus fruit to China, including oranges—something like 18 million kilograms of oranges and mandarins. That is before the duty and tariff reductions of the free trade agreement take place. We are going to see tariffs of between 11 per cent and 30 per cent, which are currently imposed on our citrus fruit, come down to zero over eight years.
I saw an interesting article the other day about the importance of Brand Australia, and there was an example where Chinese counterfeiters were actually taking Chinese oranges and labelling them 'made in Australia', 'produce of Australia', thinking that they could get a higher price for them. This brings me to the point of the importance of Brand Australia. Chinese consumers will pay a higher price for goods that they know are made in Australia because we have a good reputation. But we have to realise the risk that that reputation is being put at.
The risk to our reputation, the risk to that Brand Australia, is coming from the xenophobic campaign against the Australia free trade agreement by the current opposition members. To support this, I quote none other than the former ALP president, Warren Mundine: 'The union campaign against the China-Australian Free Trade Agreement, like protectionist arguments of old, is dressed up in economics to protect Australian jobs. It is a nonsense. It is built on misinformation and lies, and federal Labor is indulging in it.' He goes on: 'The anti-China free trade agreement campaign makes false claims against safety standards, workplace conditions and migration laws being eroded.' He continues, 'Labor is losing its way. I have lived under the shadow of racism for my entire life. The bigoted, anti-China free trade campaign makes me deeply angry. It is embarrassing watching Labor dance around while they oppose it.'
Brand Australia is being damaged by the campaign, by the people who sit on that side of Australia. They are damaging our national interest simply on a xenophobic campaign and I call on them to put the interest of our national first before their political interest and get behind us and support this China free trade agreement. (Time expired)
Labor will always back regional and rural Australia and we have a proud history of supporting and delivering in these areas. We know that investing in regional areas is critically important for local communities, not just for the facilities that will be provided but also for the creation of jobs and economical activity. Building upon this proud history, we are extremely excited that on Saturday, 26 September, Labor will be holding our Country Labor Forum in Casino in northern New South Wales. This will be a great opportunity to bring together members from right across the country and across the regions to talk about the issues and discuss the policies and plans that we need. Of course, we do this is the context of the Abbott government's unfair attacks, which continue to hurt country areas, particularly as they slash vital funding.
In the regions, we blame the National Party for this betrayal. We have seen this Liberal-National government abandon regional Australia in numerous policy areas. They have no focus on jobs or trading for the regions. They cut a billion dollars from local government. They have also cut Labor's successful Regional Development Australia Fund, and they have particularly failed in the very critical service areas like heath and education. The health cuts by the Abbott government hit rural areas harder due to the challenges these communities face with regard to access to services and distances to major urban centres. On every major indicator, people living in country Australia have the poorest health outcomes, out-of-pocket health costs are higher and the rates of chronic disease are higher too. Despite all of these increased and complex issues, the government has cut hospital funding by around $50 billion and cut Medicare rebates for GPs. Compare this to Labor's record: we increased rural GPs by 29 per cent, we built 25 regional cancer centres, we had more funding for regional hospitals and we boosted bulk-billing rates.
When it comes to education, students in regional areas should have the same support and opportunities available to students in the capital cities. That is why Labor put in place Gonski reforms. Regional and country schools are among those with the most to gain from school reforms. But this government has cut the last two years of the Gonski reforms by harshly cutting $30 billion to schools funding. The Gonski school reforms include additional funding for small schools, remote schools, socioeconomically disadvantaged schools, Indigenous students and students with a disability. Today, one in every four Australian students at university is there because of Labor. Labor increased government investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. In contrast to this, we have the Abbott government's plans for $100,000 degrees, which will mean that talented kids from regional areas will just not have the opportunity to go to university. But Labor will continue to fight these very cruel changes.
I am very proud to a represent a regional electorate, but I am deeply disappointed that we currently have a government that has no plans or understanding as to how to address the very complex challenges that are facing regional and rural Australia. I especially condemn the National Party for this betrayal of regional Australia. They sell out country people every chance they get. I see it across my area and right across the nation. The National Party continue to sell out country people at every single opportunity they get and I condemn them for it.
Gilmore is always a place to gloat about and last Friday was no exception. The day began at the Navy base HMAS Albatross to turn the first sod. At least, this was a symbolic gesture. I almost thought I would have a chance to operate a bulldozer as the site is well and truly in its construction phase. The Minister for Defence, Kevin Andrews, was unable to attend so I was able to represent him to turn the sod as a confirmation of the government's $157 million investment in the Helicopter Aircrew Training System. This brings the total investment in our local defence region to a level of more than $6.2 billion. This level of training infrastructure, simulators and accommodation brings this base to a position of being one of the best in the world. The community is proud and the Navy and Army helicopter training school is proud. Special mention of our great Navy personnel Commodore Vince Di Pietro, Commodore Colin Lawrence, Captain Simon Bateman and Captain Steve Hussey should be made. A more personable and professional group I could not ever find. Thank you also to Group Captain Browning and Lieutenant Colonel Hamlyn, who ably represented the full integration of all our services. I could not be more proud myself.
That afternoon, Gilmore shone in two other ways. Karen Anstiss, an energetic and never-give-up woman, had the formal opening of her Work for the Dole inclusive workplace, The Collared Box. Just eight weeks ago she had the brainchild of having an up-market op shop. She worked with local landlords and secured premises with the generosity of reduced rent from one of them. Her husband, David—always a steadfast ally—helped create clean and well-lit space. Trent Mills, from her Terara Farm venture, and Joseph Smith-Little, who turned recycled timber into furniture pieces, created the fit-out as well as producing goods that were able to be sold and which were a major drawcard. Mel Busby, who also works occasionally at Flagstaff, will be helping. It is a truly inclusive employment space. Already there are Work for the Dole managers helping in the retail space and learning those skills in this not-for-profit venture. Congratulations to Karen and her daughters Molly, Kia and Roz, who have all pitched in to make this amazing venture fantastically successful.
Finally that afternoon we held our inaugural Syrian refugee resettlement strategy meeting. Around 30 group representatives and individuals came to my office to ask questions and give offers of assistance to help the people settle into our community. Their compassion, enthusiasm and fair dinkum wish to help is heart-warming. Thanks to the Culey family, the Kettlewell family, Mel Hybinett, Margie Jirgens, Sally Vidler, Roger Tilly, Ryan Heard, Kylie Farrer, Philip Parker, Andrew Paterson, David Woodbridge, Helen and David Esdaile, Ned Vidler, Marty Richardson, David and Sue Jones, Rebecca Parker and the schools, churches and all of the groups that they represent for taking this first step to develop such an essential and compassionate way to work with these people who we hope will come and be welcomed into our community with open arms.
It is with great sadness that I rise to remember someone who many in this place from all sides of the parliament will also remember with great fondness. I rise to pay tribute to the life of Jan Mossfield, who passed away on 8 September 2015, aged 80 years, with her beloved husband, Frank, by her side.
As many in this place would know, Frank was the member for Greenway from 1996 until 2004. Both he and Jan were good friends of mine. Frank and Jan were very much a team. After the devastating election loss in 1996, they focused on building up camaraderie, I believe, within the Labor caucus. Jan was well known for hosting afternoon teas in Frank's office, laying on things like pumpkin scones, and playing a very important role in Frank's adjustment as the new member for Greenway in opposition.
As the Sydney Morning Herald notice reads:
Loving and adored mother of Anthony, Stephen, Jennifer, Vincent, Therese, Robyn, Alicia and Michelle. Cherished sister, grandmother, mother in law and friend, Jan will be greatly missed.
Jan's funeral will be held at 12:30 pm on Tuesday 15th September at St Patrick's Catholic Church ... Allawah Street, Blacktown. Her body will be laid to rest at Sydney Catholic Garden Cemetery at Kemps Creek. Following there will be a gathering to celebrate Jan's life.
In lieu of flowers, the family ask that you consider a donation to Parkinson's NSW.
That is right: Frank and Jan had eight children. They were a very well-respected family within the Blacktown area.
Two of my staff worked for Frank while he was the member for Greenway. I vividly recall that Jan was as solid as a rock. She would accompany him to just about every function. I remember Frank would often begin constituency statements like this one by saying, 'On the weekend, my wife Jan and I'. They either attended something, they would open something or they would be out working in the community together.
Parkinson's is a terrible disease. I visited Jan a little while ago with Frank and two of my staff. She was very frail. They had been through a few nursing homes and assisted care facilities. He loved that woman so much. He took such beautiful care of her and he nursed her with dignity right until her death. Father Confeggi at St Patrick's sent me a message that she died at his side peacefully and he woke up to find that she was gone.
Jan Mossfield was a thoroughly decent human being. She was a wonderful mother and grandmother. She was a woman of faith and she was a woman who supported her husband in everything that he did. To Frank and his whole family: my thoughts and prayers are with you at this time. Rest in peace, Jan.
Last week truly was a stellar week for regional and rural Tasmania, with Tasmanian farmers taking out four of the 10 categories at the Australian Farmer of the Year awards, as well as achieving the runner-up award in the RIRDC Rural Women's Award. Brian and Michele Lawrence from Meander in my electorate of Lyons won the Dairy Farmer of the Year category. In the category of Young Farmer of the Year, Cameron Moore from Scottsdale ended up placing third. The Farmer of the Year award was won by Matt Dunbabin from Dunalley, also in my electorate of Lyons. The Plant Biosecurity Farmer of the Year was won by Lindsay Bourke, whose operation is based at Sheffield, also in the electorate of Lyons. Lindsay is very well supported by his wife, Yeonsoon Bourke. Matt, winner of Diversification Farmer of the Year, is also ably supported by his wife, Vanessa.
Indeed, it was a stellar night, as I mentioned. Carol Bracken won the RIRDC Rural Women's Award for Tasmania. Carol and her husband Nathan have a 65-hectare property at Glengarry on the West Tamar in my electorate of Lyons. They run a hazelnut orchard that, in the last few years, has expanded from 5,000 trees and they have plans to expand that to 9,000 trees. She is indeed an inspiring young woman: a West Tamar councillor who is well engaged with her local community and a wonderful advocate for agribusiness, for women in business and for the state of Tasmania. As I mentioned, Matt Dunbabin, whom I have known for many years, won the Diversification Farmer of the Year as well as the Farmer of the Year award. Matt is a wool producer on a magnificent property: the Bangor property at Dunalley. He and his wife, Vanessa, have traditionally run a wool-growing business but have diversified into viticulture but also, in collaboration with Tom and Alice Gray, have set up a wonderful restaurant and tourism business on their property at Dunalley.
As I mentioned, Lindsay and Yeonsoon Bourke, the Plant Biosecurity Farmer of the Year, are honey and bee producers. This award recognises Lindsay's enduring efforts around plant and bee biosecurity in Australia. I was particularly pleased to see Brian and Michele Lawrence from Meander win the award for Australian Dairy Farmer of the Year. Their property is Janefield. This is a sector in which Tasmania particularly enjoys real competitive advantage in our ability to run grass-fed dairy operations at a very competitive and global costs.
In addition, I also attended the rural youth farmers of the year awards and my congratulations there go to Will McConnon and Marty McConnon, who won those awards.
I rise today to pay tribute and bid farewell to a friend and colleague, Chris Dunn, who sadly passed away on 30 August. Chris was one of the most loyal, hardworking local members of the Labor Party, and his absence in the local community will be greatly missed. His Labor values stemmed from his own upbringing, coming from a working-class family, having completed a joinery trade apprenticeship to become a successful carpenter. He also spent more than 20 years working for the Sydney Water Board. Chris's contribution to the local community was diverse and invaluable. He was the public face and also life member of Parents Without Partners New South Wales. He held that position up until his death. Chris was also a bus driver for the South West Community Transport, where he assisted elderly residents to their appointments as well as shopping and social excursions. As a volunteer, he also drove buses for James Busby High School and several Liverpool community groups.
His carpentry skills were also well used for the good of others. As a member of the Liverpool wood-turners guild, Chris helped others develop carpentry skills and made wooden toys for local children, hospitals and communities in need. Christmas was always a busy time for Chris Dunn. On many occasions, I have seen Chris's work on display at a number of trade and craft exhibits and local festivals. He was a very popular, gregarious and larger-than-life character. He was always there to help. His contribution to the local community led Chris to stand for Labor as a candidate at the Liverpool city council elections in 1999 and again in 2008.
I acknowledge Chris's contribution to the Hinchinbrook Branch of the Labor Party, where he served with distinction as president. Community contribution and voluntary work is certainly important, but there is no doubt Chris would have said his greatest achievement was being awarded Father of the Year in 1986. In the end, it is love and our connection to those closest to us that matter the most. Chris Dunn was a great bloke. He will be sorely missed by everybody who knew him. My condolences are with his family, especially his wife, Sue, and his mother, Margaret. May he rest in peace. Well done, old chum.
Recently, I presented a number of schools in my electorate of Tangney with an Australian government Anzac Day Schools' Awards. The schools I attended ceremonies at were Rossmoyne Senior High School and Riverton Primary. I also presented an award to Leeming Education Support Centre, though I did not attend the ceremony in person. It was a privilege to participate in these award ceremonies. I doubt I am alone in this place in saying that it is very often the highlight of the week. These awards channel all that is best in us. I commend the students of Rossmoyne Senior High School, Riverton Primary Campus and Leeming Education Support Centre for their excellent effort to pay tribute to the Anzac soldiers and the teachers for their commitment to teaching students about Australia's wartime history.
The Centenary of Anzac is our nation's most important period of commemoration and educating our next generation about the service and sacrifice of all of our servicemen and servicewomen is crucial. It is a critical component of carrying the Anzac legacy into our future. I congratulate the schools, teachers and students on ensuring that the contribution of all those who have served our nation will never be forgotten.
It is through education that the Anzac story is understood. The awards I presented were: Rossmoyne Senior High School, WA Winner, Secondary, which received a $2,000 cheque, a plaque and a winning certificate; Riverton Primary Campus, Best Anzac Centenary Learning, which received a $1,000 cheque, a plaque and a certificate; and Leeming Education Support Centre, Highly Commended School, which received a highly commended certificate.
The Anzac Day Schools' Awards encourage the study of Australia's wartime history in schools through learning activities and the commemoration of Australian service men and women on Anzac Day. Thirty-eight schools nationwide shared in a total of around $48,000 in prize money, which is funded by the Department of Veterans' Affairs through its Commemorations Program. For more information on the Anzac Day Schools' Awards visit www.anzacportal.dva.gov.au or my website dennisjensen.com.au.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for member's constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) National Asthma Week was 1 to 7 September 2015;
(b) the theme of National Asthma Week 2015 was „You Care We Care—One Asthma Community‟;
(c) asthma affects around one in four children, one in seven adolescents and one in ten adults;
(d) 2.3 million Australians currently have asthma;
(e) asthma is the number one cause of hospital admissions amongst young children; and
(f) while many in our community lead highly successful lives despite their asthma, asthma continues to be a significant burden for too many including those who live below the poverty line and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(2) congratulates Asthma Australia for its work promoting National Asthma Week and raising community awareness of asthma.
The week 1 to 7 September is National Asthma Week and the theme of this year's Asthma Week was 'You Care We Care—One Asthma Community.' Asthma is a long-term condition that affects a person's breathing. It is a significant cause of illness and poor quality of life and it is particularly prevalent within Australia.
It is a type of obstructive airways disease and one in 10 people suffer from asthma. Twenty per cent of people aged 15 and over with asthma have a written action plan and that should be a lot higher than it is. Children aged zero to 14 were the most likely to have written asthma plans, at 41 per cent, which is still not high enough. In 2008-09 $655 million was spent on asthma, and that is 0.9 per cent of all direct health expenditure on disease. In 2012-13 there were 37,500 hospitalisations and there were 394 deaths in 2012. With over two million people living with asthma it must be one of the nation's top health priorities. Everybody knows somebody who is living with asthma—it affects everybody, be it a friend, a work colleague, a family member or that person themselves. I am sure we will hear a little bit more about that from our next contributor to this debate.
Asthma week is the national week for promoting asthma-awareness education and self-management and for inspiring people who live with asthma. The highest prevalence of asthma is in older people and the deaths most commonly occur within the over-65 age group. There are more hospitalisations in that age group as well and nearly double than the rate of smoking. It has been demonstrated that there is a strong connection between smoking and asthma, and there are higher rates of asthma in children who are exposed to passive smoking as well.
There is a high likelihood that those with asthma will develop diabetes and mental and behavioural disorders, so there is a correlation between those. But, as with most chronic diseases, they can be prevented and remediated to an extent by healthy eating, exercise and making sure that you follow the right procedures. It is always interesting to note that those people who live in lower socioeconomic areas, or who have less disposable income and less access to education and preventative health programs, are those that tend to have the highest prevalence of asthma. The incidence of asthma is higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians than other Australians. That relates, once again, to higher rates of smoking, asthma plans not being in place and less access to preventative medicine.
I think it is vitally important that each and every member goes back to their electorate and makes their electorate aware of the fact that asthma plans are vitally important, that asthma can be managed and that asthma is one of the most prevalent diseases within our community. We need to encourage people to stop smoking and to develop asthma-friendly approaches to their lives.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. Before I add my contribution in support of my friend and the parliamentary co-chair of the Friends of Asthma, the member for Shortland, can I—because this is the first opportunity I have had in a forum such as this—acknowledge your recent decision, Deputy Speaker Southcott. Very few people are given the privilege of serving in this place; even fewer get to decide when it is their time to leave. I think that is a measure of a member who has been successful in this place—not only in terms of your efforts across very many spheres, including being a strong advocate for South Australia and the electors of Boothby, but in being given the right, effectively, to choose your time of departure. I think that says a lot, so congratulations.
I support the member for Shortland's motion on asthma. She and I are co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Asthma. I join with her in congratulating Asthma Australia for their proactive and consistent advocacy for asthma awareness and laud them for their work in developing an understanding of asthma, its effects and its treatments. Asthma is a massively prevalent condition in Australia. It affects almost one in every 10 Australians. As the member for Shortland noted in her motion, 2.3 million Australians suffer from the condition of asthma, including yours truly. Whilst asthma is a condition which affects many and is often quite mild, it can also be a condition that can prove fatal. Astonishingly, asthma kills nearly 400 Australians per year—or eight per week. Asthma, like so many conditions, disproportionately affects the socially disadvantaged in our society, especially those who live below the poverty line—including, sadly, our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Asthma awareness is critical in assisting those suffering from this condition and it does save lives. The reality is that there is a knowledge deficit in the management of asthma attacks in this country. It is my hope, through motions such as this and the work of Asthma Australia and the National Asthma Council Australia, that we can raise awareness. In raising awareness we will eliminate that deficit.
You heard from the member for Shortland that only around 21 per cent of Australians suffering from this disease have an action plan, and that is something that needs to improve. Four or five years ago, despite the fact that my condition was chronic, I was one of those people, but I can say to anyone listening to this contribution that my life has improved immeasurably as a result of my asthma plan and the fact that I now comply with it.
For example, with my asthma, which is my constant companion whether I am here in Canberra, home in my electorate or on the road generally, I am in tune with my condition. I know when I am beginning to feel unwell, and I follow the steps set out in my asthma plan. Instead of waiting for a GP consultation that might take a week or more, wherein my condition will deteriorate to the point where I become very unwell, I can begin actions towards addressing my own condition and then follow that up with a meeting with my general practitioner, which invariably goes along the lines of: 'This is the action I took. It was in line with my asthma plan, and I am on the road to recovery.'
Significantly, healthcare expenditure on asthma nationwide is some $600 million. It is a significant cost to the taxpayer and it behoves all policymakers in this place to gain a better understanding of asthma, the condition and how it affects approximately 10 per cent of our constituents. I was surprised to learn that about 50 per cent of the sufferers above the age of 50 have not been diagnosed. This, of course, dramatically increases the chances that an attack in that setting will prove fatal. I cannot stress enough the importance of diagnosis in mitigating the more serious effects of asthma. I often hear people cough and—Mr Deputy Speaker Southcott, and given your profession, one that you are about to return to, I am sure you are aware of this—I know it is an asthma cough. I often say to them: 'You need to speak to your doctor about that. It is clearly asthma.' And they will often just blow it off as a cold or a flu. It is not and they need to speak to their GP about it.
I am proud of the work of the Parliamentary Friends of Asthma in this place and of this motion. I encourage all members to come to a better understanding of this condition. Sure, it can present as a mild condition, but it can also be a fatal condition. As I said, it kills approximately eight Australians per week. I hope that I have raised awareness so that more and more people take the opportunity to get themselves an asthma plan.
I congratulate the member for Shortland for putting this matter on the agenda in parliament today, it being National Asthma Week. I also want to congratulate the member for Barker for his insight as a person living with asthma and for the plans that he has in place to deal with it.
As we have heard already, it is close to eight people a week—that is, by the end of the day it is more than likely that another person in Australia will have died because of their asthma. The quality of life of somebody living with asthma, unless it is well managed, is severely impacted. We should care about asthma and its impact on individuals for that factor alone. We also know it can be a considerable strain on families and carers and productivity within the workplace. The direct medical cost is about $600 million a year. Over half of that is in pharmaceuticals and a significant amount in acute hospitalisations. So it is right that we have a conversation. The rates of asthma in Australia are some of the highest in the world. We do not know why that is, but more money into research and understanding of this condition will help us to understand. Hopefully, over the time that I am a member of this parliament, we will know more about the causes and perhaps the cure.
The most recent data tells us that about 10.2 per cent of Australians, around 2.3 million people, are living with asthma. Overall, males and females reported similar rates of asthma—roughly 9½ per cent for males and 10 per cent for females—but there is one group of Australians for whom there is a significantly higher rate of asthma, and I would like to spend a bit of time talking about them. They are our first Australians, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is an almost 50 per cent higher incidence of asthma in this group of people. Fifteen per cent of Indigenous Australians are living with asthma—in fact, it is the second most commonly reported illness. There are a number of differences in the asthma statistics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is a high prevalence amongst older people and also amongst those who are living in remote locations. There is a higher death rate than in the general population, which means it is not being managed properly. There are higher hospitalisation rates for asthma, something that would not always be necessary if it was being managed properly, and we think there is a link with nearly double the rate of smoking in Indigenous populations, which is of particular concern. I would use this as an opportunity to encourage all members of this house to rethink the strategy of cutting $130 million out of Indigenous-specific antismoking programs.
Relatively high rates of exposure of children to passive smoking is relevant, and we know that there are fewer asthma relevant inhalants being used by Indigenous children as well. So, sadly speaking, those people with the highest incidence are less likely to have a plan in place and less likely to be treating it properly.
Many people have grown up with asthma and think that they can grow out of it. We know, and I know this from relatives of my own: you are never completely free of the condition. It is important that you are continually putting in place management plans, consulting with your GP and ensuring that they are aware of your condition. If you are waking up breathless, wheezing, coughing or if you are struggling to keep up with normal activity, these are indications that you probably do have a condition and you should be consulting your doctor.
It is of concern that only 21 per cent of Australians have a written asthma action plan. If we can do anything through this parliamentary debate and throughout the course of Asthma Awareness Week, we need to increase that rate significantly. It will take about five to 10 minutes I am told and, if you have got one in place, you are less likely to be hospitalised and less likely to be one of those people amongst that terrible mortality rate.
In concluding, I want to say there are some things that we can do to reduce the risks, in addition to having a management plan in place and ensuring that our ventolin and other inhalers are on hand—that is, to reduce the smoking rates. It is of deep concern that the smoking rates amongst people with asthma are no less than that within the general community and, if we can do something to reduce the mortality and the risk rate, this is a place to start.
Thank you. I rise to support to motion of the member for Shortland and, in doing so, I support National Asthma Week. Asthma is a condition of the airways in which sensitivity to environmental factors causes the airway to narrow, making it difficult to breathe.
Many Australians would be unaware of how prevalent asthma is in this country. The numbers quoted in the text of the motion are indeed startling. In Australia, asthma affects one in four children, one in seven adolescents and one in 10 adults. That is a total of 2.3 million asthma sufferers in Australia alone. Even more Australians may have undiagnosed asthma, particularly in older age groups. It is estimated that more than half of people aged over 55 with asthma have not been diagnosed.
The prevalence of asthma in Australia is high by international standards for reasons that are not fully understood. What we do know is that asthma prevalence in children and young adults has fallen slightly in recent years. Curiously, asthma affects more boys than girls in the 0-14 years age group, but more females than males aged 15 years and over. The majority of asthma sufferers have what is described as mild or very mild asthma with only occasional attacks. However, a minority suffer from persistent asthma that requires ongoing daily management.
The large number of asthma sufferers in Australia has a significant cost impact on the Australian economy. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated that expenditure on asthma was $655 million in 2008-09 or, to put it another way, almost one per cent of the total allocated health expenditure in Australia. There is no single trigger that causes asthma. Every case is different; however, common triggers include aerosol sprays, air pollution, dust mites, pets and pollen.
There are also differences in how symptoms are experienced. Most common symptoms are shortness of breath, wheezing, chest tightness and a dry, irritating and continual cough. Anyone with these persistent symptoms is strongly encouraged to seek further advice from their GP.
If not managed properly, asthma can lead to hospitalisation and even, in extreme cases, death. In 2012, there were 394 deaths in Australia attributed to asthma. While rates of hospitalisation and mortality due to asthma are on the long-term decline, it serves to highlight the importance of proper management of the condition. Of concern is that it is estimated that up 90 per cent of people who have asthma inhalers do not use them correctly, which puts them at an increased risk of an asthma flare-up or attack. The good news is that asthma can be controlled with medication and lifestyle changes. There are a variety of treatments available and Asthma Australia recommends consulting your GP for advice on which method will work best for you. Having a healthy diet and an active lifestyle helps with the management of asthma, as does maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding smoking and minimizing stress—a bit difficult in this place!
Asthma awareness week is not just about educating asthma suffers themselves. Any person with asthma can have a flare-up of symptoms at any time. With so many Australians living with asthma, it is just as important that those around them are aware of the signs of an asthma flare-up or attack and know what to do when they occur. Asthma Australia advises that, if a person has obvious difficulties breathing, cannot speak a full sentence in one breath, is coughing or wheezing or is not responding to their usual reliever medication, bystanders should call triple 0 immediately. If you have a family member who has asthma, it may be worth learning Asthma first aid. There is a standard procedure that can be followed by adults and children. Further details are available on the Asthma Australia website.
Asthma Australia is not only dedicated to raising awareness of asthma; it also funds the National Asthma Research Program, which offers general research grants and scholarships to support understanding of new and more effective treatments for asthma. Donations are welcome from the general public, with the hope that one day a cure will be found.
The more we understand about asthma, the better we are able to diagnose it, treat it and manage it. The downward trend in hospitalisations and deaths from asthma is a promising sign that the message is getting out there. I commend Asthma Australia for the good work that they are doing, not just in raising awareness but also in raising funding for research into treatments and potential cures. I thank the member for Shortland for bringing the motion to the House today.
Debate adjourned.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Southcott, and I congratulate you on your retirement and service to the country. I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) majority of Australians believe the use of animal testing to evaluate the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients is unnecessary; and
(b) regulatory framework in Australia for chemicals, including cosmetics, is complex; and
(2) moves to phase out the unnecessary developing, manufacturing, selling, advertising or importing into Australia of cosmetics, or ingredients in cosmetics, which have been tested on live animals to evaluate the safety of those products and ingredients.
Cosmetic testing on animals is wrong, it is barbaric, it is cruel and it is no longer necessary. As Abraham Lincoln once said:
I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.
It is time for modernisation and increased global harmonisation of Australia's cosmetic-testing regulations through the implementation of a cosmetics animal-testing ban. This private member's motion highlights the need to prohibit new animal testing for cosmetic products or their ingredients and the manufacture and sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals or containing newly animal tested ingredients. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hannah Stuart from Humane Research Australia and the Choose Cruelty Free campaigners, as well as Bruce Poon from the Animal Justice Party, for bringing this issues to me and for being so passionate about protecting animals.
Testing the ingredients of cosmetics like mascara and shampoo on living creatures is completely unnecessary cruelty and it is time Australia joined the growing number of countries around the world which have banned this practice. There are already testing bans on importation and sales in place in the European Union, Norway, India and Israel. Also, a ban has recently been put in place in New Zealand and now there is consideration for legislation in the United States, Canada, Taiwan, Brazil, Vietnam and other countries. Without a comprehensive legal ban, there is nothing to prevent cosmetic animal testing taking place here in Australia or overseas during the development of products which are to be sold in Australian stores.
A ban in Australia would be good for animals, consumers and science, and it is what the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens want. A majority of Australians oppose animal testing on cosmetics and support banning the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics. Polling conducted in May 2013 by Nexus Research on behalf of Humane Research Australia found the following. An overwhelming majority of Australia—85 per cent—oppose using animals in the development of cosmetics. A large majority support a national ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals—that is, four out of five Australians who support a national ban. A recent opinion poll from July 2014 by Roy Morgan Research also showed a significant level of consumer concern about animal testing of cosmetics. The data revealed that there is now a strong shift towards cruelty-free beauty products, with 'not tested on animals' being one of the top three features that Australian consumers look for when buying cosmetics, ranking higher than anti-ageing benefits and sun protection factors.
Prohibiting cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics in Australia would reflect both the growing global trend to end cosmetics testing and the will of the Australians who oppose using animals for the development of cosmetics. Currently, hundreds of companies, including Lush, Nature's Organics, Natio, Australis and many others, such as those listed in the CCF list, have sworn off animal testing yet still produce new, safe and fabulous beauty products. They do so by using existing ingredients with established histories of safe, state-of-the-art, non-animal tests that can produce faster, cheaper and more relevant test results. Many animal tests are decades old and have inherent, well-known scientific weaknesses due to species differences that make regulation based on animal tests highly questionable.
I will just describe some of the tests and the results. In the acute toxicity test, the test substance is forced down a rat's throat using a syringe. Animals may experience diarrhoea, convulsions, bleeding from the mouth, seizures, paralysis and, ultimately, death. In repeated dose toxicity tests, rats and mice are force-fed a substance every day for 28 to 90 days. At the end of the experiment, the animals are killed and their organs are then examined. In the skin allergy test, the test substance is applied to the surface of the skin, or it is injected into the ears of guinea pigs or applied to the ears of mice. They end up getting ulcers, scaling, inflammation and itchiness.
This must stop. It must stop now, and I strongly encourage the Australian government to end this practice.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I really do want to thank the member for La Trobe for taking the trouble to put forward this motion for the House to discuss. It is a really important issue and, I know, a subject of real passion for him. I fully support the motion that the member for La Trobe has put forward. I believe that testing on animals for cosmetic purposes should be banned in Australia, and I believe that because Australia has responsibilities beyond our borders we should also ban the sale, the marketing and the production of cosmetics in our country that have been tested on animals. I hold this view because I believe that testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is fundamentally unethical. I think there are some debates that we can have around the borders of the ethics regarding animal cruelty as to what can and cannot be justified, but the notion that we would put our quest for beauty as humans ahead of the rights of animals to live without pain is fundamentally incorrect. The idea that animals should die in pain so that we can have better lipstick or better moisturiser for our skin is fundamentally wrong.
I hold that view, and it is important to point out in debates like this that so do the vast majority of Australians. We know that somewhere around 85 per cent of women—who are the primary users of cosmetics—and around 80 per cent of Australians overall support a ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals. We can argue very passionately about these subjects in the House, as we often do, but as policymakers we do not do any favours to the public unless we recognise the complexities that are inherent in the regulation of this sort of issue. There are lots of community values that we have, but putting them into law is not always as straightforward as it sounds. That is what Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten had in mind last year when they asked me to run a national consultation in to the banning of cosmetics tested on animals in Australia to try to understand what some of those issues are and get to the bottom of whether this is possible and what the best legislative means would be.
Running this national consultation was really an extraordinary experience. We met with stakeholders, animal rights groups, cosmetic manufacturers and scientists—people from all over the country who have a view on this type of issue. We held public forums in six capital cities, where we spoke to hundreds of Australians about their beliefs. One of the best parts of this was that we enabled ordinary Australians to make submissions to this inquiry, and we received 14,000 submissions—14,000 people around this country put their names forward and put forward their views and ideas about this important issue. Just for reference, the Gonski review—this incredibly fundamental reform which will change how our schools are funded—received about 7,000 submissions. That just gives you a sense of how strongly so many Australians feel about this.
When we look at what came out of the national consultation—there is a report which I will put up online if people are interested to see it—firstly, it is crystal clear that there is a strong view in the community that this practice is unjustified. That support is growing over time. Some of the things that the member for La Trobe pointed out are absolutely correct. There is a view among scientists that animal testing is not really telling us much more than we can get from other tests. There are lots of issues with inferring results that we see in animal testing onto humans. Something else that I heard from a lot of people was that some people who argue against this process say, 'You could just look at the ingredients on the back of packages in supermarkets,' but that is not what consumers want. They do not want to have to reflect on ethics every time they go into the supermarket aisle get some toothpaste; they just want the law to reflect their values and I believe that that is possible.
It is important to note that the notion of applying this retrospectively was not supported by anyone that we consulted with. Even the animal welfare activists said to us that if we banned cosmetics that had already been tested on animals, those animals would have died for nothing. It is important, I think, that we maintain that principle when we talk with scientists and cosmetics companies about this. Very well-informed people from around Australia pointed out to us that this ban is absolutely possible because it has been done elsewhere around the world. The European Union is the largest organisation of governments so far to ban cosmetics tested on animals. They have shown that it is possible and so it cannot be beyond us here in Australia.
Finally, I would just say that it was a fantastic experience running this consultation. We saw that when we gave the public the chance to give their views they really stepped up to the plate; they took account of the complexities of the facts and they still ended up with this very strong view that cosmetics tested on animals should be banned, and I do support that. (Time expired)
I rise to join with my colleagues the member for La Trobe, the member for Hotham and the member for Scullin in supporting this motion, that the majority of Australians believe the use of animal testing to evaluate the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients is unnecessary. It was interesting to hear that the member for Hotham has run an inquiry and forums around Australia and the amount of submissions—14,000 submissions—received does show that Australians are very passionate about this. I must admit that, when I came into my office this morning, I had received an email that was sent yesterday from someone in my electorate, talking about animal-testing use for cosmetic production. I thought they must have seen the speakers' list, because I have not spoken about this issue before. It is obviously an issue that a lot of people in Australia, and particularly in my electorate, are passionate about.
It is good to see the member for Hotham has taken that report. I do not know whether the report has ever been tabled or whether she would like to share it, but it would be fantastic so that we could use it in a bipartisan approach to move this issue forward. It was also interesting to hear the member for Latrobe talk about the majority of Australians opposing animals being used for the development of cosmetics, from the Roy Morgan and the Nexus polls. That, again, supports the argument that this should be banned in Australia and it should not be allowed.
On the RSPCA website it states that many people believe that animal testing in cosmetics is a thing of the past, but the sad truth is that thousands of animals worldwide still suffer in the name of beauty. An estimated 27,000 animals are still being used for cosmetics testing across the world. This includes the use of mice, rats and rabbits in tests which can cause pain and distress. The Assistant Minister for Health is currently considering options to phase-out the use of animal testing data for the introduction of new chemicals in Australia for use in cosmetics.
While cosmetic companies do not test their products on animals here in Australia, many well-known brands do test their products or ingredients on animals elsewhere in the world, which then end up on our shelves for sale. There is much debate surrounding a need for legislative change to this, which is fantastic, but we think cosmetic products that have been tested on animals should not be sold anywhere in the world at all.
In parallel the government continues to work towards reducing the need for animal testing in the regulation of cosmetic ingredients, whilst protecting Australian consumers. There are already more than 20,000 chemical ingredients available to producers of cosmetic products that are considered to be safe, so there is no excuse for any more animals to suffer. Consumers can play a big part in this. Consumers can call on top national and international cosmetic companies to commit to not use animals to develop new products or ingredients, to no longer market products in countries where animal testing is a requirement and to help further development of humane alternative testing methods. Doing these three things will prevent future unnecessary suffering of thousands of animals every year. As I said before, as the consumer you have the power to encourage these companies to change their ways. It is time to take a stand and make sure no new cosmetic products or ingredients are tested on any animal anywhere in the world.
During the 2014 autumn sittings, the Australian Greens introduced a bill to amend the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, the ICNA Act. The End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014 seeks to amend the ICNA Act to prohibit developing, manufacturing, selling, advertising or importing into Australia any cosmetics or ingredients for cosmetics which have been tested on animals. The government is currently considering the implications of the bill and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme is committed to reducing the use of animals for testing chemicals in cosmetics. For health effects which have validated non-animal tests such as skin and eye irritation, NICNAS accepts this information instead of animal testing results. NICNAS accepts the results of the test that meet internationally agreed standards and does not require tests including those using animals that have already been undertaken overseas to be repeated in Australia.
In finishing my speech, again I applaud the member for La Trobe, the member for Hotham and the member for Scullin for taking up this issue, talking about it in this place and moving it further forward. Again, I was really surprised by going on to the site that showed all the countries that still use animals in developing cosmetics. People should make themselves aware of that. I support this motion.
When I was first elected as member for Scullin, something that really surprised me was the depth of feeling right across the Scullin electorate on issues of animal welfare. It continues to amaze me how often I receive correspondence around the full gamut of issues which go to concerns about the treatment of animals in Australia and overseas. In particular there has obviously been a focus on concerns expressed in respect of the live export industry, but the concerns go across the full spectrum and I think they show that across the communities I represent—and this is a pattern which is consistent right across the Scullin electorate, from Hurstbridge to Thomastown—we, in this place, ensure that we do give a voice to prevent suffering for those who are otherwise voiceless if we do not take that action. I think that is particularly important in the case of a motion such as this, when the suffering is on any of you, entirely unnecessary, as I think the member for Hotham expressed with characteristic clarity.
I am very pleased to be able to support the motion moved by the member for La Trobe today and to join with the member for Hotham and the member for Swan in doing so. I think it is important that, in this place, we give expression to issues that are so important to so many of our constituents and do so in a bipartisan manner, where we can look at the evidence, look at the moral framework around this issue and step forward, hopefully, as one parliament. In doing so, I do hope that members opposite—and I know the member for Swan touched on this quite generously in his contribution—pay heed to the work that has been done by the member for Hotham at the request of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because I think the consultation she touched upon in her contribution should be more widely read. It is not a particularly partisan document but it does express two really important things: (1) the depth of interest right across the Australian community in these concerns—six well-attended forums and 14,000 submissions received—and (2) the fact that she has also worked through, with the benefit of these contributions, some of the complexities that go to really dealing with these concerns in an effective way. She has not simply introduced a private senator's bill for the sake of it; she has tried to tidy up all the regulatory issues and all the practical concerns to give effect to the values that this motion expresses.
I think this goes perhaps to a couple of wider concerns and, for my part, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the advocacy of groups like Animals Australia and World Animal Protection in bringing together concerned citizens to aggregate and articulate these concerns effectively. It is critical, in my mind, that we build together a confidence that formal politics, not just community activism, can make these concerns, which are so genuinely and passionately felt, something that not only drives conversations in the community but drives real outcomes in this parliament and works through these issues, where appropriate, with industry and manages the parliamentary process and the process of government to bring it better in line with the legitimate expectations of the Australian people.
On that point, the member for Swan touched upon the role of consumers, and this, of course, is important. But labelling and consumer awareness can only take us so far. It is a responsibility of this parliament and the Australian government to do more. I think, with the very limited time that is available to me, I should make clear how pleased I am to be able to support this motion. I thank the member for La Trobe for putting it on the Notice Paper. I am very pleased to stand with the overwhelming majority of the Australian community and trust that the assistant minister will do likewise in the very near future.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) nine men a day die from prostate cancer;
(b) September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month;
(c) Members of Parliament and members of the community are encouraged to host their own Big Aussie Barbie to raise awareness for the prevention of prostate cancer in Australia; and
(d) the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) encourages all men to:
(i) be aware of the importance of early detection;
(ii) consult with their general practitioner about prostate cancer; and
(iii) if they have a family history of prostate cancer and are aged 40 to 50 years, arrange with their general practitioner to be tested; and
(2) acknowledges the important work done by the PCFA through promoting research, raising awareness and supporting the families of prostate cancer sufferers and survivors.
In my first speech in parliament I told the story of my grandfather Athol Neate. He was a garbageman, he was a soldier and he was a prisoner of war. He was captured by the Nazis in Crete in 1941 and he spent the next few years as a prisoner of war until he was released in 1943 as part of a prisoner transfer. He lived an extraordinary life and he died an excruciating death. He died from prostate cancer. I will never forget how the drugs that he had to take made his face, his feet and his hands puff up. I will never forget visiting him at the nursing home just before he died and seeing how he had so withered away. I will never forget the pained look on his face, his courage in the face of all of this or how much he loved my grandmother and my whole family. He deserved better. He deserved better than an awful death. He deserved better than to be taken by this terrible disease.
So many Australian families have a story like this. Every day, nine Australian men die from prostate cancer, more than 3,000 every year. More Australians die from prostate cancer than breast cancer, but awareness of this disease and funding for research are tiny by comparison. Today, another 54 Australians will be told that that they have prostate cancer. Twenty thousand will get this news this year. For some, it will be too late; the cancer will be too advanced to stop. But for others, those who find out early—this is important information; it is information that could just save their lives—early detection is the key. In the early stages of prostate cancer you might have no symptoms at all. That is why, if you are a bloke in your 40s or 50s, it is important to talk to your doctor and ask their advice about getting tested. If you have a family history of prostate cancer, it is recommended that you talk to your doctor about getting checked from the age of 40. If you do not have a family history of prostate cancer, then it is recommended that you should start talking to your doctor about this when you turn 50. The most important thing is to go to the doctor, and men, as we know, are terrible at this. We tend to put off going to the doctor. We do not like getting a check-up, and we do not like asking questions about all of these things, but we have to—it is too important not to. If you are listening to this and you are not a bloke in your 40s or 50s but know somebody who is, then encourage them to go to the doctor to ask these questions, get information and ask if they should get a check-up.
That is what this month is all about. This month is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and as part of that the Prostate Cancer Awareness Foundation is encouraging all of us— members of parliament and all members of the community—to organise a Big Aussie Barbie to raise awareness of prostate cancer and to raise funds to help the 120,000 Australian men and their families who are currently living with prostate cancer. I am running my own Big Aussie Barbie this Saturday morning at Bass Hill Plaza in my electorate. If you live in Bankstown, Bass Hill, Georges Hall, Yagoona or anywhere in Western Sydney and you have some spare time this Saturday morning, come down to Bass Hill Plaza, buy a snag and get some information.
This Wednesday, with my colleague Karen McNamara, the member for Dobell, we are hosting a Big Aussie Barbie here at Parliament House. I can think of no better way to get a bunch of politicians, their staff and journalists together than the smell of steak, sausages and onions cooking. So that is what we will be doing this Wednesday at midday in the House of Representatives courtyard. I encourage everybody here at Parliament House to come along, get a snag, get a steak, get a brochure with some information, read it and then give it to someone you love and tell them to read it and to have a talk to their doctor. If you are watching this or listening to this and you want to run your own barbie or just get more information, then go to www.prostate.org.au—you might just save your life.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I thank the member for Blaxland for bringing it before the House. I also thank the member for joining with me as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness Group and for his efforts in raising awareness of prostate cancer. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare provides startling statistics on how this cancer continues to be so devastating. Almost 25 per cent of all new male cancer cases are prostate cancer, and it is forecast that there will be approximately 17,250 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2015.
While there are approximately 120,000 men nationwide living with prostate cancer, there is a 93 per cent chance of surviving for five years or more. Unfortunately, it is estimated that more than 3,000 men will tragically lose their battle with prostate cancer this year. Thirteen per cent of all male deaths from cancer are attributed to prostate cancer. Studies of prostate cancer continue to indicate a strong correlation between age and this particular type of cancer. This year it is estimated that the risk of a male being diagnosed with prostate cancer by their 85th birthday will be one in seven. It is anticipated that this year the incidence of prostate cancer will increase for all age groups up to 65 years of age. Latest statistics on the New South Wales Central Coast indicate that prostate cancer accounts for almost 16 per cent of all cancer diagnoses.
With nine men dying every day from prostate cancer, it is clear that there is still a lot of work to be done. In acknowledging the unfortunately high number of men suffering from prostate cancer, it is important that we as parliamentarians raise awareness in our communities of this deadly disease, particularly in September, it being Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Every year, in an effort to raise awareness of the devastation caused by prostate cancer, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, the PCFA, host a number of events. A highlight event is the Big Aussie Barbie, which is held in many communities across Australia. In my electorate of Dobell, community groups such as the Bateau Bay Men's Shed have already held a barbie for this worthy cause, and many more organisations, such as our local bowling clubs, will be hosting Big Aussie Barbies pretty soon.
Not only will there be Big Aussie Barbies held in Dobell and in the seat of Blaxland to help raise awareness but, later this week here at Parliament House, the PCFA will be hosting the Parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie. I encourage all members to drop by and lend their support. We will also see the arrival of the Big Aussie Barbie semitrailer here at Parliament House, driven from Queensland to Canberra by Mr John West, a prostate cancer survivor. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage any individuals in the community who may be interested in organising their own Big Aussie Barbie to do so.
I join with the member for Blaxland in thanking the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia for the work they do and their tireless efforts to promote awareness. In raising awareness of prostate cancer, early detection and advances in treatment, hopefully the success rate with this type of cancer will increase. An early prognosis is important to successful treatment, so the PCFA encourage all men over the age of 50—or, in the case of men with a family history of prostate cancer, over the age of 40—to talk to their GP about testing for this disease.
As I have mentioned, prostate cancer is a devastating cancer. It is common, it is a rapid cancer and a large number of men will be affected. A strong advocate for awareness of prostate cancer is a former member for Robertson, the Hon. Jim Lloyd. In his own words, Jim said:
I know from personal experience just how important early diagnosis is in the successful treatment of prostate cancer.
In acknowledging Jim's tireless work, I would also like to acknowledge the many other advocates for the positive stories from prostate cancer, and I am sure many people would agree with Jim's sentiments on early detection.
I comment also on the impacts this cancer, as well as other types of cancer, has on the families of those diagnosed. As a mother, wife, daughter and sister, I acknowledge this cancer could affect my family. All of the awareness and support I have referred to relies on many supportive women in our communities. It was my interactions with the women bowlers of my community that led me to approaching the bowling clubs of Dobell to host a Big Aussie Barbie after the women shared with me their personal stories of their partner's battle with prostate cancer. In closing, I thank the member for Blaxland for bringing this motion to the House and for working with me as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness group.
I would like to thank the members for Blaxland and Dobell for moving this motion on prostate cancer awareness. It is true that early detection is always the best protection, and the screening of men is now seen as something that is entirely normal and something that has the universal support of the medical profession. It was not always so. Back in the days when Jim Lloyd and I moved the first motion in this parliament about raising awareness of prostate cancer, that advice of early detection and universal screening as the best protection was opposed by substantial elements of the medical profession. So it is great to see how far we have come.
I pay tribute to the work of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and in particular its former chairman, Graeme Johnson, who was honoured in the Australia Day awards for his very substantial work over many years in raising awareness about prostate cancer. There have of course been many other tireless advocates in our community—Jim Lloyd is one—who have saved lives through raising awareness.
I come to this debate and discussion with a great deal of personal experience. I can stand here and say that I am one of the lucky ones. Had things been different, if I had not had a switched-on GP, I would not be here today. That might of course have been pleasing to one or two around the place; nevertheless, I was the beneficiary of a switched-on GP who, for no reason other than the fact that she was acutely aware of how dangerous this disease is, gave me a PSA test without me having asked for it specifically—because there were no symptoms. There are so many who have no symptoms who are not detected and who, as a consequence of not being detected, die a very painful and excruciating death. Early detection is the best protection and I am an example of someone who was detected early and has gone on to live a life unaffected by my prostate cancer, its diagnosis or its subsequent treatment.
What my case says is something really powerful about what needs to be done. Whilst I was diagnosed in 2001, my father, a digger from World War II, survived the war but did not survive prostate cancer. In 1989 he died from prostate cancer—an agonising death—aged 67. I was only 35 when he passed away and, like most men of my age, I was entirely unware that as a consequence of his prostate cancer I was at a much higher degree of risk of contracting prostate cancer. I was entirely unaware of that. I did not think about my vulnerability until I was diagnosed 12 years after his death, in a sudden call from my GP telling me I had had an adverse test. As I said before, the test was not taken because I had gone to the doctor complaining about any symptoms—because for many prostate cancer is a silent killer. That is why it is so dangerous.
Having watched my father die a painful death from prostate cancer, I was blissfully unaware at that stage that I had any higher degree of risk. In fact, at that stage there was a lot of advice floating around from shonks in the medical profession to the effect of, 'You don't die from it, you die with prostate cancer.' That was used by many to argue the case against universal testing, whatever the age of the patient—40-plus, 50-plus and so on. What most men still do not know—and this is where there is a huge communication exercise yet to take place—is that, if they have a first-degree relative who has suffered from prostate cancer, the risk of having cancer is not one in 10 or one in seven but one in three. That number is not really known. There are still many people who are highly at risk of prostate cancer but who are blissfully unaware of the need to be tested. Of course, testing does not come easily to many men, who do not necessarily want to have the challenge, in their terms, of a choice between their long term health or some particular impact—for example, on their sex life.
There are still many more lives yet to be saved, with 17,000 new cases each year and over 3,000 men dying. There is so much more work to be done. The good news is that survival rates are going up dramatically. That is largely a result of the great work of people like Professor Tony Costello, Phil Stricker and others, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. They have been so successful not only in raising awareness but also in the technological advances that have come through robotics and many other achievements. I will finish by saying that in government we established the prostate centres as part of our comprehensive approach to making sure that men survive prostate cancer. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Blaxland for this very important motion. Concerns about prostate cancer strike a chord with many of us and many families across Australia. I note the statistic that nine men die from prostate cancer per day, and in regional areas like mine the statistics are particularly dire. In 2011 there were nearly 20,000 new cases of prostate cancer in Australia, accounting for 30 per cent of all new cases of cancer in males, making it the most common cancer diagnosis in Australia—excluding non-melanoma skin cancer—and the most common cancer diagnosed in Australian men. It is estimated that, by 2020, this figure will have grown to over 25,000 new cases.
With substantial funding support from the federal government, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, PCFA, is doing very important work to promote and fund research, implement awareness campaigns, education campaigns and programs, and provide support to men and their families through information and resources, support groups and prostate cancer specialist nurses.
Breaking the stigma about men's health check-ups is an issue I am very aware of. My predecessor, the late Albie Shultz, fought for prostate cancer support to the very end. In fact, as I have already indicated in this place, a prostate cancer nurse for the Riverina was the last thing I spoke to him about before he died. Over the last 12 months, my colleague Michael McCormack, the member for Riverina, and I have heard a great deal of community concern about the urgent need to address this gap in healthcare support for men and families in Riverina. We took the issue repeatedly to the minister, Sussan Ley, and it was a tremendous feeling last month to find that a workable solution had been found for the region.
A partnership between the PCFA, the Murrumbidgee Local Health District and the local community has allowed for a prostate cancer coordinator position to be created for the region. This new role will provide a specialist nurse coordinator to work with patients and their families to offer support, assist with access to services, source information about diagnosis and treatment, coordinate care, and help with education and training of other healthcare workers. The coordinator will be based in the Wagga Wagga Health Service and will coordinate support for prostate cancer patients in surrounding towns, including Cootamundra and Young in my electorate, through regular education and training sessions and so on. They will also be making use of technology, such as videoconferencing, to enhance support.
The specialist nurse will see patients outside of Wagga Wagga and will provide guidance and expertise to up-skill local cancer care coordinators. That is a very important part of this, because it is very different dealing with prostrate cancer versus other sorts of cancer. We know there is, of course, magnificent support for breast cancer, but it is very different. Jill Ludford, Chief Executive of the Murrumbidgee Local Health District, said the prostate cancer nurse was an:
… important priority for our region and this outcome is a great example of community partnerships. The Murrumbidgee Local Health District is keen to work with support groups and continue to meet regularly with them on the back of this good news story.
After hearing news of the support that we now have, I jumped straight on the phone to the president of the Cootamundra Prostate Cancer Support Group, Eddy Williams. Eddy said:
We are absolutely delighted the Federal Government has made the funds available. The Cootamundra Prostate Cancer Support Group advocated strongly with many letters going to various people. We are so happy; this will make a difference and it will save lives. It is a very, very important role the prostate nurse has, as they are there to follow-up with the patient and their family right through the journey.
It is wonderful seeing Eddy getting that support he has fought for for so long. I would also like to note the key role Sherrie McCaffery and Bob Bowcher of the Cootamundra Prostate Cancer Support Group have played in lobbying stakeholders on this issue, and I note the keen interest of the newly formed Young Prostate Cancer Support Group.
This is an outstanding result from an active community campaign, and I am delighted to announce this news to the House during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) celebrates:
(a) 16 September as the anniversary of the 1963 Malaysian federation; and
(b) the long term friendship that exists between governments and people of Australia and Malaysia; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the 23 Australian servicemen who died and 8 who were wounded during the Indonesian-Malaysian confrontation and the establishment of the state of Malaysia;
(b) that our security partnership, including defence cooperation and our joint participation in the Five Power Defence Arrangements, remains a key component of our bilateral relationship; and
(c) the efforts of the Australian Government to further strengthen ties between our two countries through stronger trade links and other initiatives such as the New Colombo Plan.
This week it is the 42nd Anniversary of the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. This important day was 16 September 1963. Although this date is about the origins and success of the people of Malaysia—and I congratulate them for this important day on Wednesday—I raise this as a motion here in the Australian parliament because of our nation's role in the events at the time.
The Federation of Malaysia does actually have specific significance for our nation, because the survival of the Federation of Malaysia was a cause worth fighting for and, in some cases, a cause that Australians died for. I speak of a little known war, the conflict known as the confrontation or konfrontasi. This was when the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force joined with Malaysian and Commonwealth forces to oppose Indonesian-sponsored insurgents on Borneo, but also in the sea between Borneo and on the Malaysian peninsula.
It was in January 1963 that President Sukarno coined the term konfrontasi, when he said that Indonesia would confront Malaysia over the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak as part of the Malaysian Federation, which would formally begin on 16 September 1963. By late 1962, Indonesia had increasingly become opposed to a Malaysia that included parts of the island of Borneo. Indonesia was already training insurgents to cross into Sabah and Sarawak and attempting to stop the federation planned for August. The Australian government saw this as a tricky situation. Indonesia was clearly an important neighbour but, through our involvement in the South East Asian Treaty Organisation and our obligations to a fellow Commonwealth member, Australia was involved. It was in January 1963 that Australian Navy ships were deployed off the north coast of Borneo. By September 1963, Indonesian-trained insurgents were crossing into Sabah and Sarawak.
Following the experiences of World War II, when Japanese forces attacked the Australian mainland, the need for 'forward defence' was a government policy. Indeed, our policy of forward defence saw us embrace ANZUS as an insurance policy in 1951. But it has increasingly been viewed that it was through the 1954 SEATO treaty, including the requirement to contribute a standing force, that saw Australia place troops in Malaya. As part of the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve, our soldiers, sailors and airmen became involved in the confrontation. Our contribution from 1964 saw 3RAR oppose Indonesian raids onto the Malaya Peninsula and then the deployment of troops on Borneo, all whilst the Air Force was active in the region and the Australian Navy was involved in restricting the opportunities for insurgents to move to the Malay Peninsula by sea. Other Australian units included the Special Air Service, a troop of signallers, artillery and engineers.
With the deployment of first 3RAR then 4RAR and the SAS onto Borneo itself, by 1965 the Australian and Commonwealth forces had begun to follow the Indonesian insurgents back across the border to gather information. By July 1965 special forces and infantry were crossing the border to ambush insurgents before they crossed over into Malaysian territory. In an increasingly hostile environment with aggressive Commonwealth military activity the insurgents struggled with any form of offensive capability, and then with the rise of Suharto the Indonesian interest and focus declined and by August 1966 a peace treaty had been finalised.
We should remember that 23 Australians were killed during the confrontation, seven of them on operations, and eight were wounded. It is right that we should remember their sacrifice on this day. A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak to some veterans of the confrontation. They were in the Royal Australian Navy and, as they described to me, they were told they were sailing for the waters off north Borneo, but they did not know why. Not long after they arrived on station they opened fire, but they did not know who they were firing on or why. It is interesting to hear of that situation as it puts things in context. As we know, the role Australian servicemen played was not publically known for many years and this was not acknowledged by the government until relatively recently.
It is true that the relationship between our countries was founded on our joint efforts to preserve peace and the integrity of South-East Asia, including through conflicts such as the confrontation. Our security partnership, including defence cooperation and our participation in the Five Power Defence Arrangements, has in the last two years been supplemented through the efforts of government to further strengthen ties between our countries through stronger trade links and other initiatives such as the New Colombo Plan. The relationship may have originated in the most challenging of times, but it has been enhanced and strengthened through wide and effective cooperation.
Once again, my congratulations to the nation of Malaysia for 16 September and my enduring thanks and acknowledgement to those Australians who fought for the cause and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. They served with honour and courage. Lest we forget.
Is the motion seconded?
I am happy to second the motion.
Australia and Malaysia share a long history of cooperation, and this year we celebrated the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. Our formal diplomatic relationship dates back to 1955, when Australia opened its first commission in Kuala Lumpur. Our ties with Malaysia run deep. In the 1950s Malaya was one of our closest regional allies, and Australians fought extensively to protect it during World War II. During that conflict many Australian soldiers were captured as prisoners of war, and Sandakan will forever be a place etched in the Australian psyche. Over 2,300 allied soldiers were killed as prisoners of war, including 1,787 Australians. It has been referred to as one of the greatest atrocities suffered by Australian servicemen during war. Sadly, it is scarcely remembered in Australia—but fondly remembered in Sarawak and Sabah in Borneo—that it was Australian troops that led the fight that eventually recaptured the island.
This was the beginning of Australia and Malaysia's considerable military cooperation—cooperation that is still strong today. Throughout the last 60 years the defence relationship between our countries has changed and evolved. Australia supported Malaysia through the emergency in the 1950s, when Malaysia's government struggled to contain internal militant groups, and Australia then stood by Malaysia during the konfrontasi in the 1960s. Australia was a founding member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, an agreement that has become the cornerstone of Malaysian foreign and defence policy for decades. Our bilateral connections stretch much further, and the Malaysia-Australia Joint Defence Program is a pillar of our defence relationship. Under this agreement, Malaysia and Australia have defence force personnel stationed in each other's countries, facilitating exchanges and joint training exercises. This kind of exchange promotes collaboration between our defence forces, growing our regional defence relationships and increasing our strategic effectiveness. The Five Power Defence Arrangements and the Malaysia-Australia Joint Defence Program are highly consultative arrangements. They place an emphasis on cooperation, consensus, trust and openness. They are examples of how Australia can work with other nations in our region to promote Australia's strategic interests.
We have sought each other's assistance in international frameworks, dating back to when Australia sponsored Malaya's application for membership of the United Nations. We are also active participants in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in which Australia is a dialogue partner, the East Asia Summit and APEC. Malaysia is the chair of ASEAN and the East Asia Summit for 2015, as well as being a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for 2015-2016—a position the previous Labor government fought to acquire for Australia for 2013-2014.
Both Australia and Malaysia rely on the Indo-Pacific being a region where international law and norms are observed, where networks of effective multilateral institutions ensure conflicts are peacefully resolved and where countries are allowed to grow and prosper through further economic integration. With this basic common interest—an interest we share with all of our South-East Asian neighbours—our relationship with Malaysia has grown into far more than mutual security partners. Australia and Malaysia's relationship has grown so that Australia now has more people-to-people ties with Malaysia than the majority of South-East Asian nations. In 2011, there were over 110,000 Malaysian born people living in Australia and many more claiming Malaysian heritage—a community including prominent and successful Australians such as tennis star Nick Kyrgios. This diaspora community has been a powerful element in promoting trade and empowering our formal diplomatic relationship.
Our economies are complementary, and we are in each other's top ten trading partners. We are also in each other's top tourism destinations. Last year, half a million Australians visited Malaysia and 300,000 Malaysians visited Australia. We have strong educational links. In 2012, there were over 22,000 Malaysian students studying in Australia and 21,000 Malaysian and international students studying for Australian qualifications while in Malaysia. In total, approximately 300,000 Malaysians have studied in Australia. These alumni connections are a great start, but if we want to properly engage we need this kind of educational exchange to be reciprocal, and we should encourage all Australians to live and study in Malaysia and throughout our region. This will not only increase our Asian language and cultural proficiency but create an environment for people-to-people relationships and common bonds to flourish in our national strategic interests.
The relationship between Australia and Malaysia was once a result of convenience, geography and empire, but, over the decades, that has changed. Australia's relationship with Malaysia has changed from one of support in its early years to one of intense collaboration today. I am sure that this relationship will continue to grow and mature in future decades, and I know all members of the House support this object.
On Wednesday, 16 September, we will join with our Malaysian friends in commemorating Malaysia Day. On behalf of the Australian parliament, I convey the best wishes of the Australian people on this significant national day to His Excellency Dato' Zainal Abidin Ahmad, the High Commissioner of Malaysia, and Mr Zamani Ismail, the Deputy High Commissioner, based at the High Commission of Malaysia in Canberra. I would like to compliment Malaysia on its adept leadership this year, including as chair of ASEAN and the East Asia Summit and in representing the region on the United Nations Security Council.
Australian and Malaysia share a history of strong diplomatic relations dating back several decades in terms of economic, social, defence, and cultural ties. Australia's enduring friendship with Malaysia goes back a long way. This year marks the 60th anniversary of Australia's diplomatic presence in Kuala Lumpur. The cooperative international relationship between our two nations has grown and matured dramatically over the past 60 years, from one of support in the early years of Malaysia's federation to one of close collaboration and comprehensive partnership today. Defence cooperation is the bedrock of this relationship. As the member for Cowan noted, our defence forces stood together through tough times and crises, including the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesian confrontation. The Five Power Defence Arrangement represents a regional security initiative that has been in place for almost 40 years. It involves joint military exercises among Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Our broader security partnership extends to combatting non-traditional security threats, including terrorism, violent extremism, transnational crime and people smuggling. Today, our defence relationship is one of the closest and deepest in Asia.
Malaysia is Australia's eighth largest trading partner. The Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has been in force since 2013, further integrates the Australian economy into the fast-growing Asian region. The Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement is an important part of the network of free trade agreements in the region.
The Australia Malaysia Business Council aims to foster, support and promote business, investment and cultural support between Australia and Malaysia. There are some 200 industrial and technological parks in Malaysia ready to do business with Australian firms. The AMBC, with the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Trade Commission, regularly commissions research and analysis of business, trade and investment conditions to facilitate international trade and investment between our countries.
Malaysia and Australia also share close links in the field of higher education between our universities, with more than 300,000 Malaysian students having studied in Australia since the original Colombo Plan. When I was a student at Curtin University we had an active Malaysian students association on campus. The future holds great opportunities for international academic exchanges and collaboration between universities on research and development. Edith Cowan University in my electorate of Moore is actively seeking international partnerships.
The New Colombo Plan will support 272 Australian undergraduate students to live, study and undertake work placements in Malaysia in 2016. These students will study a broad range of subjects including architecture, engineering, business management, education, accounting and medical studies at various institutions and gain experience of Malaysian workplaces through internships and mentorships. These students will return to Australia with new insights and understanding about Malaysia and new friendships that will last a lifetime.
The ties between Australia and Malaysia are set to expand even further as we work together to open up new opportunities for trade and investment. Australia and Malaysia are natural partners. We live in the same region. We have complementary economies. We share a stake in the region's security and prosperity. Australia looks forward to supporting a closer partnership between our countries into the future.
I did not think I would ever hear a resolution like this being debated by the coalition. I am quite surprised, to be honest, because in the last term of parliament we heard terrible things being said about a neighbour, an ally and an economic partner like Malaysia—and it was said by the current Prime Minister. We heard senior frontbenchers criticising Malaysia, all in the context of grubby point scoring in the domestic political scene. It was about trashing the reputation of Malaysia during the course of debate on a domestic political issue and they were quite happy to do it. In fact, I never once heard the member for Cowan defend Malaysia—not once. None of these people defended Malaysia when their own leader, the current Prime Minister, was out there saying, for example, as he said to my colleague the member for McMahon:
He can talk to Malaysian justice officials and find out about the kind of caning and other corporal punishment that boat people might be sent to if they are part of this Malaysian people swap that the Prime Minister wants to put in place.
That is our current Prime Minister making out that everyone gets caned and subjected to corporal punishment if they are seeking asylum in Malaysia. The current Minister for Social Services, then the opposition immigration shadow minister, likened the treatment of refugees in Malaysia to that of mistreated cattle in Indonesia. 'I am equally shocked,' he said. 'If we are going to be consistent about these matters then I think the conditions these people will be held and treated in Malaysia is a relevant question.' He was making out that this is the way in which people are treated by a country so valued by our nation that it is a clear and more important figure within ASEAN and within the East Asia summit. None of these people were making these types of references that we are hearing today. It is good that they are, but they did not say it at the time.
What happened? The Prime Minister on election, when he had to meet the Malaysian heads of government, then came out and apologised and said, 'Oh, well, we were probably too robust and probably over the top in what we said and it was wrong that it happened.' It is the classic Tony Abbott play book. The Tony Abbott play book is to make the play and apologise for it later—to seek confession later but then to do this.
This is an outrageous treatment of Malaysia and it was an outrageous way to behave, and it should not be forgotten by our friends in Malaysia. Australia and Malaysia are key trading partners.
Government members interjecting—
They do not want to hear this. They do not want to hear this, because it is inconvenient and it burns now. But you cannot and should not treat—
Government members interjecting—
The hypocrisy of the mover of this resolution! I did not hear you once defend Malaysia. Where were you when your own leader was trashing Malaysia? Nowhere. You were not anywhere. You were nowhere to be heard. It was an outrageous way—
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
Member for Cowan, I am on the record. When I have a disagreement with my leader over the way in which they might behave or contain themselves or say things that I believe are against the public spirit, you go and look at my record. I am happy to compare my record any day to yours, particularly in relation to this, and you know as well as anyone else in this place right now how close Western Australia is to Malaysia and how important those links are. But the fact of the matter is you all sat there mute, because you were all happy—all of you were happy—to sit there and see Malaysia trashed in that way and not stand up for it at all. It was an outrage.
Do you know what else happened as a result of this grubby political play? As a result of our inability to secure that agreement with Malaysia, 689 people died—689. And so what you did was that you trashed the relationship with Malaysia and, on top of that, you were happy to see that agreement go down, and as a result people paid for it. It was an outrage. So do not come into this place now. Do not come in here trying to say that you are all the friends of Malaysia now, because we remember and, importantly, our Malaysian friends remember exactly what you did.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House calls on the Government to:
(1) acknowledge that:
(a)the drop in apprentices currently in training from 417,700 in September 2013 to 319,700 in March 2015 will impact on the future availability of skilled workers in Australia; and
(b)apprenticeship commencements and completions are down approximately 20 per cent for the 12 months to 31 December 2014;
(2) recognise that the $1 billion in cuts to apprenticeship support, including Tools For Your Trade payments and mentoring and access programs, have had an impact on apprentice numbers;
(3) implement strategies as a matter of urgency to encourage more apprentices into training to prevent skills shortages in the future; and
(4) invest in skills and training young Australians to ensure that Australia does not have to rely heavily on Temporary Work (Skilled) visas (subclass 457) resulting from a lack of investment in skills and training.
I have to bring to the House's attention—and this is the reason why I put this notice of motion on the Notice Papera fairly dramatic recent release of figures on apprentice and trainee numbers in this country. In particular, I want to outline for people how the impact on apprentice and trainee numbers has been affected by government decision making and put a very strong call out to the government to reconsider what they are doing in this space.
First of all, what is the situation we find ourselves in? The National Centre for Vocational Education Research, NCVER, which is our premier data collection and analysis body in this sector, on Friday a week ago released its report Australian vocational education and training statistics: apprentices and trainees 2015—March quarter
What this report told us was that, since the government has been elected, nearly 100,000 apprentices have been lost in that time period.
A government member interjecting—
I have to say: I would not go to what the rates of loss were previously, because this is an unprecedented decrease in the number of apprentices and trainees. In particular, I would point out that the time period that I am talking about covers from the election of the government—that is, the September 2013 numbers, which were 417,700 in training. For the March quarter of this year, that has dropped to 319,700. That is almost a quarter of the number of apprentices and trainees in training that have been lost. And the reason that this is such a significant and indeed critical issue for both our economy and our communities is that that means that we are not putting in place the next pipeline of skilled people to take on the jobs that are emerging—and I am sure people in this house would know exactly what it is like trying to get a plumber or a tiler in the current environment. They are in very short supply, and we need to be training young people in order to meet those skills shortages. I of course would point out that apprentices and trainees cover a wide range of employment areas from hairdressing, plumbing, tiling to construction but also across areas where the trainees operate, in particular, in the services sector. And so we need to be getting the balance right to get the next generation trained.
The other reason it is so important to our communities is that we have this persistent high youth unemployment and, in particular, for many of our regional and rural areas. One of the most effective and important pathways for young people to get a start in the employment market is through the apprenticeship and traineeship system. I would call on Minister Birmingham to have a very urgent look at these figures and to go into bat for some additional funding. His portfolio has suffered a billion dollar cut in programs to support apprentices. I am sure members opposite are going to talk all about their new Australian apprenticeship network system and I would point out to them: it will replace the old apprenticeship centres and it will replace them with $10 million a year less than they previously had.
The government is also asking the centres to do mentoring, to do job matching—jobs that were not done previously by the apprenticeship centres but under specific funded programs, which were cut. So not only are the networks having to do more work; they are having to do it with less money at a time when clearly there is a need to be getting behind the apprenticeship system and our young people getting that chance.
The Tools for Your Trade was cut—I hear complaints on this all over the place. There is a very low uptake of the trade support loans—only about 25,000 at last count, out of over 300,000 apprentices in training. So there is a real problem out there, and we need to take it seriously and take urgent action. The minister needs to give this his urgent attention. I have to say I have not heard him speak on apprentices and trainees at all. The government has taken its eye off the ball. If 'Sticking to Our Plan', which was the brochure that recently came out, is accurate, it is actually sticking it to apprentices. We need to do a much better job than that for our young people.
Is the motion seconded?
Thank you very much. I am happy to second this motion. I am glad the member for Cunningham brought it up. I will back the member for Cunningham in being very passionate in relation to apprentices and vocational education and training.
By and large, apprentices are employed by small businesses, and the area I would like to concentrate on is the area of construction and building in my city. The tender process done by governments has a lot to answer for in this space. We see governments of all shapes and sizes making these tenders bigger and bigger. Tier 1 tenderers no longer employ tradespeople—there is provision in there for training, but they will do anything which resembles training. They do not do apprenticeships anymore. They do not like doing apprenticeships. What we should be doing in this space is making sure that these things do turn over and that their subcontractors are actually employing apprentices–which leads me to another area which I will cover very shortly.
The problem we have with the money that is still being still spent on training is that that training is being done in the workplace. Health and safety training and other sorts of formal training that are done in-house, where they can be, for the small group of people that are actually there. It does not have the same impact as what we used to see, where a building site would go up or something would be built and you would have your tier 1 contactor, your lead contractor, with all your subcontractors there—and you would have a number of apprentices there.
What I would really like to see is pressure being put on the tier 1 contractors to employ subcontractors who do employ apprentices. We have group training organisations in Townsville like TORGAS who have parents coming to them and saying, 'My son or daughter will work for nothing'. It is not about wages. It is not about junior wages or mature apprenticeship wages; this is about people getting an opportunity. On the big government jobs where the money used to wash through our economy two, three and four times, more and more we are now seeing it wash through only once.
There are two jobs in Townsville at the moment which are up for grabs—one at the university and one at the RAAF base. We are seeing the tier one contractors win those, as you would always expect—and I still see that as being wrong, because the money and profits do not stay in our community. The government's infrastructure is not just about providing a building or providing a road; it is about facilitating trade and making sure our community is growing. What we are seeing at the moment is that we are getting the nice piece of infrastructure, but the profit is exiting the stage—and we are not seeing any benefit from that.
Too often we are seeing these tier 1 contractors sign up subcontractors who have enterprise bargaining agreements with the CFMEU, and they are not employing locals who have apprentices. I am talking about Townsville at the moment and I am talking about recent history. What we are seeing is groups come up—fly-in fly-out contractors—where the locals cannot compete and are not getting a job. We are seeing the opportunity for premises in my city completely disappear. There are two jobs in Townsville at moment and we are seeing local guys who have up to a dozen apprentices in line for these jobs—they know what the jobs cost and what the profit margins are—and they are being told that they are going to miss out. Whether it comes to plumbers, builders, concreters or metalworkers—that is what it goes to.
When you have an organisation, like TORGAS for example, that wants to place its apprentices, they cannot have these apprentices shifting all around the country from job to job. They must get work on these local projects. I think there is an onus on all governments to ensure that, because if we spend this money and do not get apprenticeships and the next generation of tradespeople coming through, then we as a government and as a parliament have failed. That is the real shame here.
There is an article in The Australian today about house prices going up because you cannot get a builder—because we cannot get these kids onto jobs. It goes all the way through. I know that the part I am looking at is a very thin slice of the entire vocational education training market. There are things that we are trying to do here, in this space—and I think Simon Birmingham is working very hard trying to get the right result. But we as a government and as a parliament must look towards our local councils and get back to the way things used to be done—more and more locally. I am talking about regional economies like the one I am so intimately involved in. I see a series of industries in my city under real pressure at the moment and I think it is something that we are going to be very sad about in the very near future. I back the member who brought this motion forward and I think it is a very timely item.
I support the motion of the shadow minister for vocational education, the member for Cunningham, and commend her for highlighting these important issues. This motion goes right to the heart of this cruel government's cuts and how they have impacted on the training opportunities, and the subsequent future employment opportunities, for our young people. Compounding this situation is the fact that this government has no new ideas for training young people for the jobs of the future.
Firstly and most alarmingly, under this government we have seen a drop of nearly 100,000 in the number of apprentices in training. This major drop will be felt particularly severely in regional areas—where unemployment is consistently higher than in the cities and where youth unemployment is always high. The Abbott government needs to implement policies that actually help apprentices and not cut every bit of funding available. They should be focused on training a skilled workforce for the future.
It is also a great concern that apprenticeship commencements and completions are down approximately 20 per cent for the 12 months to 31 December 2014, a massive reduction. This reflects the government's lack of support and lack of incentives to ensure that apprentices are able to complete their training. It is appalling that there has not been one policy put forward by the Abbott government that increases investment in apprentices to help them start and complete an apprenticeship.
We have just seen the second anniversary of the Abbott government. In that time we have seen so many harsh cuts to programs and services. In terms of training, we have seen $2 billion in cuts to skills funding. This government's relentless attack on the training of tomorrow's apprentices began with the first budget and has just continued at every opportunity it has. We have seen it make $1 billion in cuts to apprenticeship programs. We have seen it replace apprentice support with apprentice debt by abolishing the Tools for Your Trade program. We have had a rebadging and cutting of funding to the Australian Apprenticeships Centres, along with the abolition of the Joint Group Training Program. The government has also cut support for adult apprentices, and this is particularly cruel in our current economic situation, in which many industries are transitioning and often older workers require retraining. The fact is that we should be investing in training the workforce of the future, not cutting every program that helps them train and helps people enter or re-enter the workforce.
Two years of the Abbott government has meant a decrease in training for Australians. In particular, young Australians are paying the price, especially when it comes to TAFE cuts. At both a state and a federal level, the cuts to TAFE have been extremely harsh. Just yesterday it was reported that leaked cabinet documents from the New South Wales Liberal-National government reveal that they want to sell off 27 TAFE sites. The documents showed that in 21 regional towns TAFE will be closed or reduced through a partial sale. This is a disgrace. For the New South Wales North Coast and my electorate, this includes the full sale of the Murwillumbah TAFE and also, nearby, a partial sale of the Ballina campus. This is outrageous. I would especially like to condemn the North Coast Nationals for these closures. It shows yet again that in regional and rural areas the Nationals just cannot be trusted. This is their plan to close the TAFEs at Murwillumbah and Ballina. It is a disgrace. The fact is that TAFE plays an important role in our towns, and TAFE means so many local students can access the education and skills they need. Often TAFE provides courses no private provider would deliver. On top of the TAFE closures, it was also reported recently that North Coast TAFE will be restructured and almost 200 jobs will be redefined. Reportedly, up to 60 of these positions will simply disappear and the remaining ones will have reduced conditions on hours and remuneration, another really bad blow for TAFE on the North Coast.
We also heard last week that the Abbott government is looking at a takeover of vocational education, including TAFE. This will just mean more cuts; that is all. In contrast to all the Abbott government's cuts, Labor is committed to supporting TAFE. We understand how important it is for training, and we will make skills and training a national priority. We have a very proud history in this area. Under the previous Labor government, the number of people participating in government funded training grew from 1.2 million in 2007 to 1.5 million in 2013. A Labor government will back TAFE by guaranteeing that a portion of government funding for vocational education is dedicated to public TAFE.
So only Labor really understands the vital role that TAFE plays. On the North Coast, we are very pleased that the shadow minister will be visiting this area very soon, later this month, and she will be talking firsthand to many people who have been severely impacted by the Abbott government's harsh policies when it comes to vocational education and training.
The fact is that our economy has been damaged by the Liberals' and Nationals' $2 billion cut to TAFE and vocational education. In contrast to all this, Labor is the party that believes in investing and training. Labor is backing TAFE. We have said that on many occasions. We know how important TAFE is for training, particularly for our young people for the future. We also believe that every Australian, young or old, whether they live in the city or in the bush, has an equal right to share in the jobs and opportunities of the future, and these cuts that I have outlined have particularly hurt those people in regional and rural areas, particularly our young people, who are desperate to get effective training and access decent education systems. I condemn this government—I particularly condemn the National Party—for its ongoing cuts to regional and rural Australia.
I commend the member for Cunningham for her concern about apprenticeships. I think she is quite right to raise this as an important issue, a critical issue and one that all Australians should be concerned about, because the truth of the matter is that we know we have demand outstripping supply for many trade apprenticeships in particular and we know that this issue has been with us for some time and needs to be addressed. I will talk a little about some of the things the government is doing to address it.
The member for Cunningham talked about some research done by the NCVER. I think it is very good research. I have stayed across it for quite some time, because this is an issue of such importance to my electorate. I went back to a report that they published in 2014 to see what had happened over time in terms of apprenticeships. I was particularly interested in the first chart, figure 1, of the 2014 NCVER report on apprenticeships which looked at commencements.
I was astounded to see that, towards the end of 2007, apprenticeship commencements had reached about 22,000 a month; however, suddenly, just about the time that the Labor government got into power, they collapsed. By mid-2009, the number was closer to 17,000. So we saw very soon after Labor got into power a sharp reduction in the number of commencements—
An opposition member interjecting—
I will come back to that in a moment—so it is very clear that those opposite preach about this issue but understand very little about how to achieve it.
When we go to completion rates, we see a similarly sobering picture. I go to figure 2 of that very same report and we see that, between 2008 and 2012, those opposite did not manage to get completion rates above 50 per cent in any one year for trade apprentices. This was a disaster, and meanwhile they were preaching to every Australian that they needed to go to university. Let me tell you: the apprentices and the tradies in my electorate were insulted by your absolute obsession to focus on getting people to university. I went to university—I was very lucky to and I am delighted that I did go to university, but not every Australian needs to go to university to earn a good income and have a great job. Those opposite never understood this.
The data speaks for itself. What we find beneath the surface—they talk about cuts. Under Labor, they cut more than $1 billion from apprenticeships between the 2011-12 budget and the 2013 federal election—$1 billion in cuts, including millions of dollars in incentives taken out overnight on the eve of the 2013 election. This was their tactic: a billion dollars lost. We saw a collapse in apprenticeship completions, as I said; however, right towards the end of their time in government, the apprenticeship commencements collapsed again. This was directly as a result of their cuts in funding to this very important part of what goes on in all of our electorates.
Under the coalition we have seen $6 billion this year go to vocational educational training through funding to the states and territories to support their training systems and TAFE—$1.8 billion, up to 250,000 training places funded through the $664 million Industry Skills Funds; and student loans for VET students—$1.76 billion. These are massively important investments in our future and they are turning around a ship which those opposite came very, very close to completely sinking.
In my electorate, this is an all-important issue and I have a large number of tradies and apprentices. I was delighted that the Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, came to my electorate recently. He met with TAFE students, with Marty Burgess, the faculty director for trades and technology in Goulburn, and he saw the very good work that is going on by this government in my region. We are turning around a ship—a ship that was almost sunk by those opposite. This is a critical issue for Australia and my electorate.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that more than 27,000 Australian boys and girls participate in the Australian Defence Force Cadet program: Army, Air Force and Navy;
(2) expresses its support for the program and the role that it plays in youth development throughout Australia;
(3) encourages young Australians to consider joining their nearest cadet unit; and
(4) extends its appreciation to Australian Defence Force personnel, reservists and volunteers who assist in the delivery of the program.
The Australian Defence Force Cadet program is one of the very best youth programs our country has to offer. It plays a huge role in youth development, giving cadets unique experiences and skills. Importantly, young cadets learn about discipline and the power of self-discipline—and, with self-discipline, you can set goals and you can achieve. Young people often feel overwhelmed by the difficult decisions or tasks they are faced with as they grow up. A cadet is equipped with the tools to remain focussed and attain goals. The Australian Defence Force educates cadets about the function of leadership. They learn about respectful leadership, the role it plays and what a good leader does.
The Defence Force does an outstanding job, and it is important that our young people understand the functions involved. Joining the cadet program gives an insight into the good work our Navy, Army and Air Force personnel do and the sacrifices they make for our country, and they come to realise just how professional and how competent our Defence Force is. I have spent a lot of time, particularly with our Navy and our Army, and one thing that is overwhelming is how competent and professional they are. I have personally benefitted from the programs that the Defence Force run. I went to a boarding school where being in the cadets was compulsory. I was in it for five years, and I did a course and became a cadet underofficer, which no doubt will surprise my good friend here from Townsville.
It is really good to see young people get involved. The self-discipline part is particularly important. To have to learn to stand still when you are on an honour guard takes a lot of doing. But when you are with a heap of people who will give you hell if you do not do it, you do it, and it does teach you self-discipline. The Australian Air Force Cadet aviation centre in Bathurst opened in April last year. It is the first of its kind; a centre of excellence. I am proud to say that over 1,000 cadets, 40 ADF cadets and 367 staff have participated in camps in the Bathurst glider facility from its opening until June this year. This financial year, it is predicted that 1½ thousand cadets will participate in camps. It is phenomenal to see these programs are growing and our young people are interested.
I really encourage all young Australians to think about joining their nearest cadet school. It is a great advantage if they can do it at school but, for obvious reasons in this day and age, that does not happen. I take the opportunity to thank every person involved in making these programs happen, and I would like to express my appreciation—and, I am sure, my government's and the parliament's appreciation—to the ADF personnel, reservists and volunteers who are driving the programs. To those involved in the school programs in my electorate, at Scots and Kinross, I extend my personal thanks, and also thank those who are running the programs generally.
I would just like to say that the program in Dubbo, in Mark Coulton's electorate—just outside my old electorate—being run by the reservists is simply outstanding, as are the ones further east in Calare. Young Australians can gain so much from these programs, and I personally recommend it. I was going to say that I would not be the person I am without it—and that will upset some people. Personally, it is something that I look back on with pride—and, yes, I did learn a lot of self-discipline. My mother and father could not teach it to me—though they tried—but the cadet corps did. There is no-one more professional or competent than the Defence Force, and the more people who spend more time with them, the better.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I am very pleased indeed to rise to support this motion. The Australian Defence Force Cadets is a voluntary, uniformed, youth development organisation established within the Australian Defence Organisation and comprising cadets, community-based staff and volunteers. The ADF Cadets has a distinctive service character and relationships with each of the three services that are integral to their function, their identity and their work. There are the Australian Navy Cadets, the Australian Army Cadets and the Australian Air Force Cadets.
It is fair to say that in my time as parliamentary secretary for defence I had the privilege of visiting cadet units right across Australia, and again and again I was struck by the enormous success of this scheme. I would go so far as to make the boast that it is the leading youth development program in this country. The ADF Cadets program comes in two varieties: there are school-based units and there are community-based units. Each of them has their virtues and each of them relies on strong support from the community and community volunteers.
The ADF Cadets program, as a youth department program, serves a number of functions. Above and beyond youth development, it seeks to encourage young people interested in the ADF to pursue careers in the ADF, the Australian Defence Organisation or defence industries, and it seeks to engender a positive attitude towards the ADF in the broader community. In that sense, that makes the ADF Cadets program one of the most successful community outreach efforts organised by the ADF.
It would strike any observer visiting a cadet unit that the ADF Cadets program is successful in recruiting a greater diversity of Australians to its ranks than, in fact, the ADF itself is able to do. In particular, the ADF Cadets program has been very successful in attracting a much higher ratio of women into its ranks and a much higher ratio of Australians from families that were born overseas or do not speak English in their homes. These are two great virtues of the program. It engenders strong civics and Australian values in those young participants and, hopefully, serves to better the diversity of the ADF itself.
When in government, the Australian Labor Party very proudly organised the Hickling review into Australian Defence Force Cadets, led by Lieutenant General Hickling. That report of November 2008 enabled stronger funding and stronger focus on ADF Cadets. It also meant that there were new units formed, but it did identify a number of constraints. I would like to join with those opposite in congratulating this scheme for its work and for its reputation—and, indeed, for sustaining that reputation. At a time when other youth development programs have come under great scrutiny and great criticism, ADF Cadets remains a strong and reputable program.
But there are constraints that both sides of this parliament should join together in dealing with. There is an excessive administrative burden on those volunteers who make this program possible. There must continue to be a strong child protection focus, so that the pristine interpretation of ADF Cadets continues into the future. Also, of course, we should encourage the three services to take even greater interest in their own cadet programs.
There is an adage amongst ADF cadets that the Air Force love their cadets, the Army know they have cadets and the Navy is yet to find out that it has cadets. This adage—and I say it in jest—is borne out by the funding. In 2013, the last year of the Labor government, the Air Force Cadets spent some $8.8 million, Army spent $7.6 million and Navy spent $5.1 million. I can say from my personal experience that the former Chief of Air Force, Geoff Brown—and I am sure this also applies to the current Chief of Air Force—was an enormous enthusiast for Air Force Cadets, and that permeated right through his service. It meant that the additional funding provided by Labor to the cadet program was swooped up by him and spent on purchasing gliders. It is fair to say that for the young participants in that program the opportunity to fly gliders was an enormous delight.
This is a great success and a great model of enthusiasm, but it has always been my personal view that Navy Cadets, in particular, has enormous potential for growth in a maritime nation such as our own—building maritime and navigational skills. I suspect that is a program that would readily attract vast numbers of young Australians to join. I join with those opposite in congratulating this youth development program, and I think that together we can make sure that it has an even stronger future.
I thank the member for Calare for moving this motion. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an organisation for which we should all have great respect. The member for Calare said that he was once a cadet. I was not a cadet, nor did I serve—and the cadets and the ADF are better for that. Whether they are my RAAF cadets at Garbutt, my Army cadets at Heatley State High School at Lavarack Barracks or the TS Coral Sea Navy cadets at South Townsville, these are young people working hard to improve their skills in a wide range of areas.
I agree with the member for Batman that the Australian cadet movement is the premier youth leadership program on offer in our country today. Before I came to this place, I was an employer of many young people. If I saw that the young person had served in cadets, they were always granted an interview. The reasons are many, but they are also very simple: for a start, cadets are good people. They are invariably polite and well presented. They can speak to people many years their senior with respect and authority. They understand the nature of conversation. Cadets understand teamwork. They know that not everyone can be a star and that some have to do the hard yards so that all can win. They know that if they have a hard-yards role, they will do it with a smile on their faces and sweat on their brows as they push their teams to success. They listen. This is often overlooked and is a quality that many of us in here could do with a refresh of. The ability to take instructions and follow through without constantly having to be reminded of the duty is a cost saving to every business and every organisation. They can tell the time and they understand that punctuality is indeed a virtue. Cadets learn some personal discipline and respect for themselves and for others. Cadets are proud but not narcissistic. They have pride in themselves and in their teams. In a world where we are seeing children riding around the streets in the middle of the night, you can bet your bottom dollar that none of them are cadets. More than anything, cadets are up for the challenge. They are constantly shifting out of their comfort zone and trying things they have never done before—and succeeding. Even when they fail, it is a success because they have tried. They will analyse, and then they will overcome.
Cadets do need support and they do need to be housed. In my city, my Navy cadets at TS Coral Sea are going to be without a home in 2017. We are working very hard in this area with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland, to make sure that there is a smooth transition. Lavarack Barracks is a great Army base but it is not a great place for kids. The barracks that are there for my Army cadets are demountables. I would love to see a permanent home for them, either on that base or somewhere near it—it is easier for kids to get onto the base by pushbike or with parents. We are all working together.
I agree with what the member for Calare said when he raised this motion, that these things do not just happen. It takes an enormous amount of effort from parents, volunteers, veterans and current serving members. A good friend of mine, Jim Davis, used to run the Magnetic Island branch of TS Coral Sea. Jim is an old salt and he has done tremendous service for his country, but he is not up to handling a bunch of cadets anymore. Sadly, the Magnetic Island branch of the TS Coral Sea cadets is not able to continue. It has some fantastic facilities and equipment and it would be great to see that sort of thing come back on. We are always working and looking for people for those things in those spaces. It does take a lot of effort. John Osborne, who heads up TS Coral Sea, said that he is certainly not going to retire on the amount of money he gets from it and that he certainly does not want to work out his hourly rate, because it would be fairly low.
Being a cadet does not mean you are destined to become a member of the ADF—far from it. Being a cadet is a role unto itself that will set you up for life knowing that there is nothing in this world that cannot be overcome if you plan properly and carry out that plan. To anybody who is thinking about getting into cadets, I give you my wholehearted endorsement. In Townsville, as would be the case right around country, you would be with a bunch of people who want to push themselves, who want to stretch themselves, who want to see how good they can be and bring their team with them, who want to try new things and who want to be part of a greater society. We are lucky in this place to be surrounded by people who genuinely care about their communities, and I think the cadets program is right in that space. I am very proud to be in a city that has so many cadets and I am very proud to be in a city that takes its young people so seriously. I thank the House.
I rise in support of the motion of the member for Calare. It is nice to see a motion where both sides agree wholeheartedly. The Australian cadet program has a long history in my electorate. During the last school holidays, about 200 Army cadets from across Victoria participated in promotion courses and camps at Puckapunyal. Cadets at the camp were taught the leadership skills required to lead their subordinates in the barracks in a field environment.
One of our own units, the 312 Army Cadet Unit, based at Puckapunyal, continued their excellent performance at these camps, I must say. The 312 is made up of Mitchell shire teenagers bringing a variety of experiences and backgrounds to the group. Cadet Sergeant Zachary Steele of 312 was awarded Student of Merit of the most senior course, the cadet under officer/warrant officer course. Lieutenant-Colonel Craig Madden of the Combined Arms Training Centre presented Zachary with the Commander Australian Army Cadet Commendation (Gold)—the highest award that a cadet can achieve.
The 312 Army Cadet Unit at Puckapunyal has been highly awarded over the past few years. The unit's success includes winning the state military skills competition in 2013 and 2014. Our cadets also represented Victoria at a number of national competitions where they placed in the top three. Other achievements of the 312 include a berth on the Young Endeavourand an Army funded exchange program to Canada for four Army cadets. Indeed, I am proud to say the 312 Army Cadet Unit is currently the most highly awarded Army cadet unit in Victoria, racking up 24 commendations and four adventure training awards.
We also have the Plenty unit at Ivanhoe Grammar School, which is another one of the cadet units we are proud of. It is approximately 150 students ranging from year 8 through to year 11 who have all shown that they espouse everything you would like to see in young leaders. Led by the CO, Captain Virginia Creed, the Plenty Valley campus unit works closely with our schools, RSLs and the wider community to ensure that each Anzac Day and Remembrance Day there is a highly-skilled and disciplined team at services to showcase their exceptional skills and ensure that our services are given the respect and high regard they deserve. Both these units are a credit to their leaders and the wider cadet movement, and they give us great pride.
The strength and the future of our country is safe in the hands of these fine young men and women of our society. I think it is worth noting that the cadets is a very inclusive organisation. Officers and instructors of cadets are drawn from a diverse range of unique backgrounds and experiences. All are committed to providing and enjoining positive, safe youth development experience, respecting the values and dignity of all people and recognising the particular rights and needs of young people.
For some six years in my younger days, I was a member of the now-defunct Upfield High School cadet unit. I can say that it was an extremely rewarding experience. You would spend many weeknights ensuring that your uniform was immaculate, starched to within an inch of its life, and that the brass on your belt was polished. You also had to remember that the old GP boots you were given had a mirror finish put on them. There were weekly parades where you learnt a range of skills and discipline. It was self-confidence building. There were camps and bivouacs where navigation and survival skills were tested along with your resolve and your ability to lead and work as a team. These are skills that are never forgotten, even if the old uniform may have shrunk a little bit over the years.
Most proudly, the cadets gave me the opportunity to march in Anzac Day parades where, rain, hail or shine, you would proudly carry the banner of the units, leading the great men and women who served our country as they march to the shrine and receive the thanks of a grateful nation along the way. As teenagers, we might have done that journey four or five times each Anzac Day, beaming with pride. You ignored the blisters you got on your feet from your GP boots or the uniform saturated in the rain, because through cadets you learnt it was an honour to be cherished that you carried the banner that reunited the men and women who put all on the line in our name, and no blisters or wet clothing were going to take that away.
Throughout my time in cadets I received a few promotions and enjoyed the time that we would have at different events, whether they were Anzac services or other community festivals and events. It was an opportunity to join together with like-minded people and work and challenge each other to see who could rise to the top, who could push themselves and deliver leadership in teams when we went on those camps and we were pitching the hutchie in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night and it was freezing cold, when you were tucked up under your little tin foil—
It did you good.
It did do us good, Member for Moreton. It was something that I have been very proud of and continue to be proud of today, that I spent that time in the Army Cadets. I am also proud that the young people of my electorate are active in the Army Cadets, Navy Cadets and the Australian Air Force Cadets. I commend this motion to the House and thank the member for Calare for bringing it on.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) National Police Remembrance Day is observed on 29 September; and
(b) this year marks 100 years of women in policing;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) significant role police officers across Australia make to our local communities and the great deal of risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty; and
(b) ultimate sacrifice that has been made by police officers who have been killed in the course of their duty and honours their lives;
(3) recognises the good work of Police Legacy who look after the loved ones of police officers who have died as a result of their duty; and
(4) reaffirms its support for the nation's 56,000 police officers whose dedication and commitment ensure peace and safety of our communities.
National Police Remembrance Day is coming up on 29 September. It is observed each year on Saint Michael's Day—Saint Michael, being the patron saint of law enforcement and, according to Christian tradition, the protector of good over evil. This is the day to reflect on the significant role that police play in our community. It is also a time to pause and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice during the course of their duties.
Last Saturday I participated in the sixth annual Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance, with police and their supporters across Australia converging in Canberra on motorcycles. This year we had over 2,000 riders coming together to pay tribute to the brave men and women who wear the police uniform. This ride was also a valuable opportunity to promote motorcycle safety. But, primarily, it is about a charity. It is a charity ride to support the great work of Police Legacy, the people who look after the loved ones of officers who have died as a result of their duty. Over the past five years, the Wall to Wall Ride has raised in excess of $400,000 for Police Legacy.
On Police Remembrance Day we also think about the loved ones left behind, those who are left permanently affected and live in grief. We owe it to the former to look after their families. The New South Wales Police Legacy alone provides care and support to more than 20,000 serving and retired police officers and their families during times of tragedy and need. The ride is also an opportunity to acknowledge the unique and often dangerous nature of policing. The job of protecting and serving the community is not an easy one. Those brave enough to wear the police uniform are to be recognised and absolutely deserve our gratitude.
Given that this year marks 100 years of women in policing, it is also important to acknowledge the great role women have played over the past century in protecting our communities across Australia, and sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice. In that respect, I would like to reflect on Detective Sergeant Jillian Hawkes, who suffered horrendous injuries during an attack while responding to an incident at Luna Park in 1977. She was effecting the arrest of a felon. Following her injuries, her leg was amputated and, as a result of further complications, she died some four years later. This is just the story of one woman, one police officer, who paid the ultimate price in carrying out her duties.
Policing comes, as we understand, with a high degree of risk that, thankfully, most of us will never have to face. It takes a special type of person with a special type of courage to wear the police uniform, and we are truly indebted to the men and women who choose to do so. The bravery of our police and their dedication to serving and protecting our communities should be nationally recognised and never taken for granted. We are forever in their debt.
The Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance was led by New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. His Queensland counterpart, Ian Stewart, was also there on the ride from the Police Memorial in Sydney through to the National Police Memorial in Canberra. In Canberra we were joined by police commissioners from each state and territory as well as the Australian Federal Police. We also had the presence of each police association across the nation including, Mark Carol from South Australia, who is president of the Police Federation of Australia, and Scott Webber, who is the vice president of the PFA as well as president of the New South Wales Police Association. I would particularly like to congratulate Mark Burgess of the Police Federation of Australia, Senior Sergeant Paul Bousfield, chair of New South Wales Police Legacy and Assistant Commissioner Mick Corboy, who, together with retired Inspector Brian Rix, from Victoria, were the instigators of the Wall to Wall Ride.
On 29 September, Police Remembrance Day, we pause to remember the 757 officers who have, throughout the history of policing in Australia, lost their lives in the line of their duty. On behalf of a very grateful community, I want to assure the nation's 56,000 police officers that we value and appreciate their commitment. To police across the nation, in particular the police officers in Liverpool, Green Valley, Cabramatta, Fairfield local area, thank you. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The men and women of our police force perform a difficult and at times thankless job. They are the people to whom we turn in times of acute crisis. They occasionally see humanity at its best, but more often at its very worst. They are the people to whom we go in dangerous situations, when the rest of us are escaping to safety. By its very nature the act of policing will always come with some risk, but sometimes police men and women pay the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe.
On the 29 September, National Police Remembrance Day, we remember those who have died in the course of or as a result of their duties. The National Police Memorial in Canberra was completed in 2006. It records the names and honours the memory of 757 police men and women. The list dates right back to first recorded fatality in 1803. It makes for some sombre reading. It includes the 29 officers from Queensland, who have lost their lives. For the Hansard record, I would like to repeat them: Patrick Cahill, John Power, George Dyas, Henry Kaye, Mark Beresford, William Dwyer, Alfred Wavell, James Sangster, Edward Lanigan, William Conroy, George Doyle, David Johnston, Charles O'Kearney, Albert Price, Roy Doyle, Gregory Olive, Douglas Wrembeck, Cecil Bagley, Desmond Trannore, Douglas Gordon, Lyle Hoey, Colin Brown, Michael Low, Peter Kidd, Brett Handran, Norman Watt, Perry Irwin, Detective Senior Constable Damian Leeding and Constable Brett Irwin, who, in 2007, having already served his country in the Army, had joined the police service and was posted to Ferny Grove in my electorate of Ryan. On his first night shift, he was sent to serve a bail warrant on a career criminal at a house in Keperra. He was shot without warning and died at the scene. His last act was to shout a warning to his colleague. He was just 33 years old. We must always remember that every loss leaves behind a grieving family. In the case of Constable Irwin: his mother, Christine and her surviving children.
Police legacy organisations around Australia work to support the partners and dependents of deceased officers. I wish to pay particular tribute to the work of Queensland Police Legacy who, for more than 40 years, have been supporting police and their families. At present they are assisting 53 families from across the state, including meeting education expenses of 80 dependent children. They also fund group holidays for police families who have suffered loss. These trips encourage them to share their stories and to look out for each other, with many establishing connections, support networks and friends that last a lifetime. Queensland Policy Legacy receives no government funding, and relies entirely on charitable support. I encourage all Queenslanders to support this very worthy cause.
In Ryan, we are well served by a police service that is heavily involved in our local community. Key to this is the work of Sergeant Jose Sarmiento, the District Crime Prevention Coordinator for our area. Jose is a frequent presence at schools and events and gives his time to speak to many community groups, including local Neighbourhood Watch meetings. He is a great example of an officer who genuinely cares about his community and is committed to working with us to keep us safe. For all the safety improvements in process, in vehicles and firearms, policing will always carry risk. It is perhaps the only profession that asks its members to leave their homes each and every day not knowing if they will return.
On National Police Remembrance Day, on 29 September, please take time to consider the vital role that the men and women of our police forces play. Remember those who have given their lives and also pay tribute to those still serving and those who have served—people like the member for Macarthur. We need to be appreciative of the risks that they take every day to keep our community safe and secure. We owe our police and their families a debt of gratitude for the work that they do. I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this motion to the House today.
I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Fowler, a ferocious advocate for the 56,000 police throughout Australia. This nation observes National Police Remembrance Day on 29 September. It is a sad but important opportunity to honour those police officers who have given their lives serving our community. The National Police Memorial here in Canberra honours the 757 police who have died in service; 29 of those from Queensland. The first of those officers was Constable Joseph Luker of Sydney, who died on duty in 1803. In Queensland our police service history spans 131 years. In 1864 there were 143 people employed in the Queensland police force. Currently, there are more than 15,000, with around 10,000 being on-duty police officers.
This year also marks 100 years of women in policing. In Queensland women have been employed since 1931. Initially, their main duties were assisting female suspects and prisoners. It was not until 1965 that the first women were sworn into the force. They initially had no power of arrest, and their duties mainly involved women and children. Later that year, 50 years ago, an act was passed giving policewomen the same powers as policemen.
The Queensland police, like all states and territories, has been an evolving body. As mechanisation and technology have changed, so too has the police force. In 1934, with the widespread adoption of the motor car, a motor garage was built in Brisbane to maintain the motor vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles. The buildings that stabled the police horses and equipment were taken over for that purpose, and it was at that time that the mounted police force moved from the city out to Oxley, in my electorate of Moreton.
In fact, Morton was very important in the development of the Queensland police force. In 1969 the Chelmer College at Laurel Avenue was established as a training complex for 27 live-in students right alongside the river. In 1972 the Queensland Police Academy at Oxley was completed. Along with the facility in Townsville, these are still the two major police training venues in Queensland.
There have been many changes to policing over the 131 years that the Queensland police force has been operating: traffic police became essential; fingerprinting; the use of radio necessitated the erection of a police wireless station in the grounds of the police depot at Petrie Terrace; central communications became operable in 1951; and, with modern communications, social media and computing, policing has changed enormously, even in the last decade.
The men and women who make our modern police force are brave and decent people. On National Police Remembrance Day we honour those brave men and women who have given their lives in their service to our country. I mentioned earlier that the first officer to die on duty was Constable Luker, who died in 1803. There have been 756 deaths in the course of duty in Australia since then.
I would also, on this occasion of the centenary of World War I, like to remember and honour those brave policemen who died on active service during the First World War. There are 30 of them in total—brave officers who were exempt from enlisting due to their occupation but who took the leave of absence to join up. There were 66 officers out of 1,112 enlisted with the permission of the police force. We remember those 30 or more Queensland police officers who died in the Great War as well as those who have died in the service of keeping the good order in our community.
One of the 757 police officers named on the National Police Memorial in Canberra was killed while on duty in my electorate of Moreton. His name is Constable Douglas George Gordon. I would like to tell you his story. On 27 March 1968 at 5.05 am, Constable Gordon was called to the Oxley Ambulance Station where a man, Mr Stabe, was causing a disturbance. The man's wife had bruising to her face and a wound near her ear. The ambulance officer advised that the wound would need to be stitched. The man insisted that the wound was nothing to worry about. Before being conveyed to hospital by ambulance, Mrs Stabe requested that Constable Gordon follow her home while she packed some clothes. Constable Gordon, sensing that Mrs Stabe's husband might be volatile, called for assistance. At the house, Constable Gordon was joined by another officer from the Inala police station. Both officers followed Mrs Stabe into her bedroom. Constable Douglas Gordon and the other officer were standing in the room when they saw Mr Stabe kneel down and reach under the bed. Before either of them could react, Mr Stabe had pulled out a rifle and shot Constable Gordon, mortally wounding him. He pointed the gun at the stomach of the other officer, who, fortunately, was able to grab the barrel of the rifle, grapple with Mr Stabe and handcuff him. Mr Stabe was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
We honour Constable Douglas George Gordon, along with the other brave officers who have died in the service of this nation. Constable Gordon died protecting a woman from her violent husband. That is one of the bravest acts of all. I support the whip's motion. Lest we forget. (Time expired)
I rise to support the member for Fowler's motion, along with the members for Moreton and Ryan. With National Police Remembrance Day fast approaching on 29 September, I am thankful for this opportunity to acknowledge the important role police officers play in our community and the significant sacrifices they make regularly in order to keep us safe. National Police Remembrance Day is a day for all Australians to pause and honour the bravery of officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, as well as those who have passed away through illness and other circumstances.
Each year, I am compelled to raise awareness of National Police Remembrance Day because I know from firsthand experience how challenging a job it is, both for the officers and their families. For 25 years I proudly served my community as a police officer in the New South Wales Police Force, so I understand the physical and emotional demands that are part and parcel of doing the job. I understand what it is like to work long and antisocial hours away from one's family in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. I understand the strain this places on our partners and loved ones, who are forced to supress the niggling fear that one day someone may turn up at the front door and, from that point onwards, they will be left to raise their children alone.
Every loss of a police officer is a solemn and jarring reminder of the dangers they face in the line of duty and the immense expectations that we, as a community, place on them to protect us. On Saturday, thousands of people from right across Australia took part in the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance: an annual tribute that honours the service and sacrifices of the many law enforcement officers killed while on duty. All funds raised during the Wall to Wall ride by the New South Wales contingent goes to New South Wales Police Legacy, which provides care and support to more than 20,000 serving and retired police officers and their families during times of tragedy and need. The charity ride is a sight to behold, and this year was no different with the banks of the Hume Highway lined with saluting officers, well-wishers and historic police cars, as more than 2,000 riders made the symbolic journey from Sydney to the National Police Memorial in Canberra on what was a beautiful spring day.
In a final gesture of solidarity and remembrance, a ceremony was held at the National Police Memorial in honour of the police who have made the ultimate sacrifice, with the names represented on the touchstones of the memorial wall. During the ceremony, batons were presented by each of the nine policing jurisdictions and the names of the inner scrolls were read out to honour those who lost their lives in the past year. Thankfully, the New South Wales scroll was blank this year. Two hundred and fifty two officers have lost their lives in the service of their community throughout the 153-year history of the New South Wales Police Force.
On previous occasions, I have spoken about two courageous police officers killed in the line of duty: namely, Detective Senior Constable Damian Leeding, who was killed during an armed robbery on the Gold Coast in 2011, and Senior Constable Jim Affleck, a highway patrolman from my electorate of Macarthur, who was run down during a police pursuit along the F5 in 2001. More recently, on 6 December 2012, Detective Inspector Bryson Charles Anderson attended a neighbours' dispute in Oakville in New South Wales where a number of arrows had been fired in the vicinity of people working on a neighbouring property. While Detective Inspector Anderson was questioning the offender, who was at the back door of the residence, the offender produced a knife and stabbed him in the face and chest. Despite his wounds, Detective Inspector Anderson assisted his colleagues to subdue the offender and a female accomplice, before he collapsed and later died from his injuries. Detective Inspector Anderson fought to protect his comrades while mortally wounded, without thought for himself and his own injuries, and his remarkable bravery should never be forgotten.
Throughout my career in the New South Wales Police Force and in my subsequent role as a member of this parliament, I have been fortunate enough to have met and made countless friends in the police force. The year 2015 marks a significant milestone for the New South Wales Police, which celebrates the evolution of the role of women in policing in New South Wales since the introduction of the first female special constables, Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes, in 1915. Today, New South Wales boasts 4,542 female sworn officers and 2,581 female unsworn officers.
To commemorate this remarkable achievement and all that women have achieved in policing over the last century, officers from across the 79 local area commands in New South Wales took part in the inaugural New South Wales Women in Policing Baton Relay which was launched on the steps of the Opera House on 8 March. I am delighted to say that both the Camden and Campbelltown LACs in Macarthur took part in the relay, which included a number of celebratory events and presentations along the way.
On behalf of the people of Macarthur, I would like to thank everyone involved in this landmark event and, more importantly, the remarkable policemen and women past and present who have served communities throughout Australia with such valour and distinction. You deserve the highest respect for what you do and we are all greatly thankful.
Debate adjourned.
I am very proud to speak to this legislation today as a co-sponsor of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. I do this because I believe this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing by me, by my community and by my nation. It will make Australia—and my community—a better, more inclusive place.
On Friday, 4 September, the Wangaratta Chronicle featured the local Anglican bishop, John Parkes AM, in both front page and editorial commentary. The headline was 'Bishop breaks ground' and the editorial was headed, 'Bishop's breath of fresh air'.
This regional paper in the seat of Indi was highlighting that Wangaratta's Anglican bishop has become Australia's first senior Anglican cleric to publicly recognise that same-sex marriage has become inevitable. In common with the rest of the country, many people in the seat of Indi are expressing an urgent sense of the need to reconsider the Marriage Act 1961 along the lines of this legislation. Around two-thirds of the Anglican diocese of Wangaratta lies within the seat of Indi. The bishop has invited his clergy and people to enter into a respectful discussion of marriage equality with each other and with the wider community.
Bishop Parkes' own position is that he hopes for a clear theology of Christian marriage and the blessings of relationships. He said he did not think that such a thing would be 'a betrayal of the Gospel or the end of the world.' The bishop has backed up his views with a substantial six-page document available on the diocese of Wangaratta website.
I raise this matter in the chamber today as a significant example of leadership—leadership that is coming from my electorate of Indi—on this most important community and social issue. I thank the bishop and his colleagues for their well-founded theological contribution to this debate. I commend the fresh thinking indicated in the bishop's contribution to this national discussion.
I believe a distinction can rightly be made between civil and religious marriage. In Australia, however, civil and religious celebrants both act on behalf of the state in precisely the same way: as agents to ensure that appropriate requirements are met and appropriate commitments are made. A religious ceremony does all of these things in the presence of God, asking and receiving God's blessing on the commitment made and the intentions offered. It is up to the various churches and religious traditions to decide for themselves whether and how they may care to respond to these developing understandings and acknowledgement of marriage equality within their own institutions and for their own people. This is a matter for them. No-one is going to force them to do anything.
The Parliament of Australia, however, is here to speak for the whole community and to legislate for the whole community, exercising basic principles of justice, equality and fairness, with appropriate safeguards and protections in place for groups who would not care to move in this way themselves.
It needs to be remembered—and I am happy to do so in this place—that there are many Christians profoundly supportive of marriage equality and who would deeply wish to have the religious or sacramental as part of the public commitment that they would wish to be able to make to each other in the presence of God. This, then, is not able to be characterised as a secular versus religious debate. It is much more complex. In any case, the ground is shifting all the time. The task of the parliament today is to legislate for justice, equality and fairness for all without discrimination.
In closing my comments today, I say to my colleague opposite that I believe that commitment is important, I believe that commitment for a lifetime is important and I believe that a lifetime commitment with legal obligations is one of the foundation blocks of our society. It is this that I am asking for for all my constituents, not just some.
This legislation is a call for all in our community. It is a call which says to all in our community, 'You belong, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. You are important. You are welcome. You can make your commitment—you can make a lifetime commitment with legal obligations in front of your family with the blessing of this parliament.' In particular, I say to Fleetwood and Ivy, 'I'm standing here on your behalf and on behalf of all rural Australians who support marriage equality.'
I appreciate this opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. It is certainly an issue that has been the subject of extensive comment and, as we know, even controversy. I acknowledge that the views being expressed in this parliament and to me in Bass are sincere and deeply held on both sides of this debate. Some people, as we know, believe that changing marriage policy is desirable and they want it to happen much quicker than it is at the moment. Another large group believes that the current definition of traditional marriage should be retained.
In reflecting on these polarised views, I acknowledge that some aspects of marriage have certainly changed over time. Things like arranged marriages and racial restrictions on marriage have been, quite rightly, struck down. Coverture has also been struck down. Feudal customs, where a woman's rights are subordinated under those of her husband upon marriage, have no place in civilised society. Can I also say, light-heartedly perhaps, that, with a strong wife and two daughters in my home, I sometimes wonder whether coverture has moved too far in the opposite direction! But I digress.
The reason I make that point, though, is to suggest that, whilst marriage has adjusted over time, none of these changes transformed the core meaning of marriage as the union between a single man and a single woman. That has been a feature of every culture across human history. So what is being proposed undoubtedly is a major social change in the lives of many people in my community. I say that not to diminish the other perspectives, which I respect, but simply to emphasise that, for a large component of my community, that core meaning of marriage is as precious as the issue of same-sex marriage is to those who advocate for change.
On 13 July 2015, my local paper, The Examiner, reported on this matter as follows:
LESS than half of Northern Tasmanian voters support same-sex marriage, an exclusive poll reveals.
I have added this information to the substantial feedback that has been provided to me in recent years via surveys and correspondence and meeting with people on both sides of this debate. Undoubtedly, there is strong advocacy on both sides of this issue, but we should make decisions on key social policy issues based not on who is the loudest but on reliable evidence. We must also respect competing perspectives on this issue.
In recent months, I have, I regret to say, received emails, letters and messages critical of opposing views, often in very highly emotive and even pejorative terms. We must respect the views of same-sex marriage proponents, just as we must respect the views of traditional marriage supporters who back the current and longstanding legal definition of marriage. Put simply, the rights of one group cannot be advanced by suppressing the rights of another group. It is not as simple as giving proponents of same-sex marriage the change they desire without in the process trampling the liberties of those on the other side of this debate. Even legal scholars arguing for same-sex marriage recognise that fundamental point. It is worthwhile reading the amici briefs of Douglas Laycock and others in the recent US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell and Hodges.
So the best way to resolve this issue is via a people's vote, which the Prime Minister has foreshadowed for after the next election. The overwhelming feedback I have received is that the Australian people support this approach, not having an outcome imposed on them, as the Labor Party has said it will do. A people's vote after the next election will accurately determine Australia's views on this major social change. It will give constituents in my electorate of Bass and elsewhere around the country the opportunity to express their view.
There is no way that I or any member of this parliament can reflect, through our individual votes, the views that I have just expressed—of those two large and diametrically opposed groups in my community and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country—particularly on an issue of this nature. All voters should have their voices heard on this issue and the people should and will decide, not politicians or a slim majority of judges, as was the case recently in the United States. I thank the House for an opportunity to make a contribution in this debate.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:36 to 16:01
I rise to congratulate the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, otherwise known as ACRATH, on their 10th anniversary of active campaigning and lobbying for the most fundamental human rights, especially the right of women and children. I recall visiting ACRATH at their offices some 10 years ago and suggested to them that they get an advocacy team together in order to bring about change and make a difference. This is exactly what they have done and, led by National Executive Officer Christine Carolan and National President Sister Anne Tormey, the ACRATH team were once again in Parliament House last week. I am very proud to have hosted many of their annual visits over the last 10 years and I am also very proud of their achievements. One of these achievements of course has been the successful lobbying for changes to the Human Trafficking Visa Framework. Another has been to organise consumer campaigns in support of ethical supply chains. One well-known retailer has changed its sourcing policies to ensure that at least 70 per cent of the chocolate they sell is made from cocoa beans picked by properly paid workers.
ACRATH are represented on the Supply Chains Working Group on the National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery. They also devised a rating guide for ethically produced clothing called STOP THE TRAFFIK. ACRATH recently received funding to develop an education kit around marriage choice and young women's rights, which is being trialled in nine schools across the state, including one in my electorate. ACRATH are a small NGO but they have managed to achieve a great deal over the past decade with compassion, warmth and dedication. I commend them and look forward to continuing our relationship.
Let's talk AFL. It is good to be a West Australian today following West Coast's and my beloved Fremantle's wins on the weekend, booking them both a home preliminary final and giving them a much needed week off. While these two teams rest up, in the Mid West, our attention turns to the GNFL grand final between Towns and Brigades at WA Country Builders Stadium on Sunday. Towns, who were long the perennial cellar dwellers of the competition, have dominated the league in the last 19 seasons, winning 10 premierships from the last 16 grand finals. Former Carlton defender Nick Diegan coaches the Bulldogs, after moving to Geraldton at the beginning of last year. Brigades will be aiming to end a 26-year premiership draught, despite making three of the past eight grand finals. The Hawks will be hoping to reverse last year's result after they fell short to Towns. They are ably coached by Pete Watters, who is in his second year at the helm. Railways tackle reining premiers Northampton in the reserves, while the family club Chapman Valley will be looking to gain their first piece of silverware in 13 years by taking on last year's premiers, Railways, in the colts. With our two AFL teams taking a rest this week, I encourage all football lovers to get out there and support their local teams. Best of luck to all clubs and players across all grades and in all sports being played this weekend.
On 24 August, I visited the Mannering Park CWA. It was a very interesting morning. From this visit, we decided we would hold a domestic violence forum in Mannering Park. We are doing this on the 25th of this month, and we are going to have Xylia Ingham from the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre, Nicole Harvey from Coast Shelter's Elandra Women and Children's Service, and Jillian Hogan from San Remo Neighbourhood Centre. We will be speaking at it, and David Harris, the shadow minister for the Central Coast, will be attending along with Pat Conroy—because Morisset CWA is joining with Mannering Park CWA to co-host this.
This is a recognition by the CWA and the communities of Mannering Park and the Central Coast that domestic violence is a big issue. September is the month where CWA concentrate on domestic violence. I congratulate them on being very involved in such an important social issue. Each and every day we hear of women being killed because of domestic violence and children's lives being affected by it as well, so I encourage people to come along and get involved in the forum on 25 September.
I have spoken many times in this place on the enormous opportunities for Australian agriculture. We sit on the edge of the strongest growing region in the world and we are extremely well placed to prosper. I am delighted that Boorowa, in my electorate, is front and centre for such an opportunity not only as one of Australia's most significant areas for primary production but as the chosen location for a new CSIRO purpose designed research farm.
As the Minister for Industry and Science, Ian Macfarlane, announced last week, 290 hectares of land in the Boorowa region has been purchased for the CSIRO's agricultural research program. This new property will see the CSIRO continue its investment in agricultural science, because we know breakthroughs in technology have absolutely defined the history of Australian agriculture.
This fantastic news for the area has been strongly welcomed by the Boorowa mayor, Wendy Tuckerman. She said:
The purchase of the land in Boorowa by CSIRO has been a big win for the region.
We hope that this purchase brings researchers, scientists and staff to the region and pays dividends for both CSIRO and the community. We look forward to working with CSIRO into the future for the best outcomes of the region and the country.
Hosting the customised farm research facility in my electorate will ensure a long and beneficial relationship between the region and the CSIRO.
Congratulations to the member for Hume: that is a real achievement. I present six petitions that have been approved by the House. There are three petitions from Dr Penny Vine from Albury and one each from Patrick Naughtin and Barbara Block from Beechworth and Susan Brunskill from Wooragee. The six petitions are signed by 514 concerned Australians.
At the heart of all of these petitions is overwhelming care and concern for those who cannot look after themselves. The petitions: express concern about the proven physical and psychological damage of indefinite and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers; call on the government to legislate time limits in detention; express concern about the plight of children in detention in Australian centres and Nauru; call on the government to stop the detention of refugee and asylum seeker children; express concern with the withdrawal of legal representation for asylum seekers who are subject to fast-tracking processes; and call on the government to reinstate the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme.
Refugees seek security and protection in Australia, not indefinite detention, not detention of children and not limited access to legal representation. We need an immigration system that reflects international law, is fair, and ensures people's health, safety and dignity is maintained. It gives me great pleasure to present these petitions.
The petition s read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia
Draws the attention of the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives to the recent legislation withdrawing legal representation for Asylums seekers who are subject to the Fast-Tracking Process. Difficulties with inadequate English, ignorance of the legal processes involved, illiteracy in their native tongue, cultural differences and psychological disabilities resulting from past torture or trauma and the absence of any form of appeal have created a process that is stacked against the applicants.
We therefore ask the House that the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) be reinstated.
from 31 citizens
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Barbara Block draws to the attention of the House the plight of children in detention in Australian centres and Nauru. We therefore ask the House to stop the detention of refugee and asylum seeker children and release all those detained, with their families, and all unaccompanied minors, into the Australian community.
from 13 citizens
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia
Draws the attention of the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives to the recent legislation withdrawing legal representation for Asylum seekers who are subject to the Fast-Tracking Process. Difficulties with inadequate English, ignorance of the legal processes involved, illiteracy in their native tongue, cultural differences and psychological disabilities resulting from past torture or trauma and the absence of any form of appeal have created a process that is stacked against the applicants.
Asylum seekers often lack the financial resources to pay for legal advice and representation .Without legal aid, asylum seekers will be left to present their protection visa applications on their own.
We therefore ask the House that the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) be reinstated for all asylum seekers, regardless of their date or mode of arrival.
from 198 citizens
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia
Draws to the attention of the Honourable the Speaker an d Members of the House of Representatives our deep concern about the proven physical and psychological damage of indefinite and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers
We therefore ask the House to legislate time limits for detention with a maximum of 30 days for adults and 5 days for children.
from 251 citizens
Petition received.
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Indi draws to the attention of the House, we are deeply concerned about the proven physical and psychological damage of indefinite and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers.
We therefore ask the House to legislated time limits in detention, with a maximum of 30 days for adults and 5 days for children.
from 11 citizens
Petition received.
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of constituents of Indi and concerned citizens draws to the attention of the House the recent withdrawal of legal representation for asylum seekers subject to Fast-track processing. We therefore ask the House to reinstate IAAAS funding.
from 11 citizens
Petition received.
I rise today to celebrate the life of George Church, a great stalwart of the Kojonup community, who passed away last week at the ripe old age of 96. George was a lifelong farmer and contemporary of my dad at the Narrogin agricultural school in the 1930s.
All his working life, George never missed a Katanning sheep sale. Although latterly he had health issues, it was great to see him at the official opening of the new Katanning saleyards in May last year. I remember as a kid waiting for the school bus and, like clockwork, George driving past at eight o'clock every Thursday on his way to the saleyards.
As a youngster, his family owned 3,200 acres on the outskirts of Kojonup, where he worked the sheep on horseback. He was a great athlete, cricketer, footballer and hockey player during his days at CBC and Narrogin agricultural college.
In 1939 he joined the 25th Light Horse Machine Gun Regiment. He fought for this great country and was a prisoner of war. He returned to farm Korrinup, and married his beloved Tricia in 1957. Although having no children themselves, their farm was always full of children and laughter. They were both heavily involved in Rotary. George was a president and had a 40 year, 100 per cent, perfect attendance record, and Tricia counselled through Rotary Youth Line.
A generous man to the end, he bequeathed $500,000 to the Shire of Kojonup towards building an aged-care and medical facility for the community. Three hundred thousand dollars sits in Rotary bequests from his family. Part of Korrinup now houses the Kojonup Senior High School and their farm. George leaves a tremendous legacy, and will be remembered as a true gentleman and a generous contributor to his community. Vale George Church.
I was delighted to recently host an awards ceremony for Local Sporting Champions grants in Newcastle. These grants go a long way to help families ensure their child can continue to play the sport they love. I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of these young athletes: Josie and Ella Pinkerton and Isabel Palmer, who all played basketball for the state team at the Australian Junior Championships; cyclist Nicola Macdonald, who competed at the junior world track championships; netballer Emma Hopkins, who represented the Hunter region at the NSWPSSA State Netball Championships; Marley Flint who is a talented swimmer and competed in backstroke at the Pacific School Games; water polo player Matthew Humby, who represented Australia at an international competition in Croatia—playing and training against some of Europe's best young water polo players; Max King, who competed at the under 18s Australian Rugby League schoolboys championships; hockey player Kendall Steel, who competed at the all schools national championships and was subsequently chosen as a shadow player for the Hockeyroos; and Davis Harara, who competed at the NSW CHS Rugby Championships and was picked to play in the next level competition. These young athletes have all excelled at the sport they love and I wish them all the very best for the future.
Today marks the 68th anniversary of Australian involvement in global peacekeeping. Indeed, Australia's peacekeeping involvement commenced in Indonesia on 14 September 1947, with four Australian military officers—just four—being the world's first peacekeepers deployed to the United Nations Good Offices Commission in Dutch East Indies, now known as Indonesia.
Since that first UN deployment, Australia has contributed more than 75,000 personnel to more than 73 operations in 64 different countries non-stop for more than 60 years. What a contribution! Up to the present day there have been personnel in operations in the Middle East area, the MEAO operations, Africa, Timor-Leste and the Solomon islands, amongst others. Earlier today the Assistant Minister for Defence, Stuart Robert—who himself is actually a veteran peacekeeper who was deployed to Bougainville in 1998—spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister at the Australian Peacekeepers Commemorative Service at the Australian site on Anzac Parade, across the lake here in Canberra. He noted that 'Australia has a proud history in global peacekeeping' and we continue:
… to provide important contributions to peace operations around the world, but our support for peacekeeping extends beyond just the boots on the ground … through our bilateral relationships and multilateral engagements …
I rise to congratulate Meals on Wheels. On 28 August I went out with Swansea Meals on Wheels and delivered meals to houses around Swansea. It was a fantastic experience talking to and meeting with older, frailer people in their homes and catching up with some people I had known for many, many years. I accompanied the Smiths. I hopped in the car with them and we drove around and visited all the families. We concentrated our effort on the village in Swansea where a number of elderly people live. There are units there and it is a very age-friendly complex.
Meals on Wheels does more than just provide food. Meals on Wheels provides support and care through meeting and talking to older people, some of whom spend all their time in their home. It gives those people some communication with the outside world. It is a fantastic experience, and I thank those wonderful volunteers at Swansea Meals on Wheels. Swansea Meals on Wheels still cook and prepare their own food as well as deliver it. That is why the residents of Swansea and Caves Beach enjoy the food they do. Happy smiles; great food.
On Friday night in Brisbane at the Roma Street Parkland, I attended a candlelight vigil in support of and to welcome refugees in our community. It was a wonderful event, attended by more than 3,000 people from Brisbane across a wide range of sectors, from people like former Lord Mayor Jim Soorley to the moderator of the Uniting Church, David Baker. We all came together to celebrate the best of refugees, to recognise that their contribution to our society is an asset. They bring determination and they bring aspiration. These are the sorts of people we want in our community. We are celebrating the fact that we will have, in the not-too-distant future, 12,000 Syrian refugees come and resettle in Australia, where they will be welcome. Speakers on the night included Andrew Bartlett, representing the Greens, and Jackie Trad, representing the state government, and I was delighted to be invited by the Multicultural Development Association to speak. I also noticed that Terri Butler, the member for Griffith, was in the audience, so I asked Terri to join me on the stage because our support for refugees is something that we are united in. I thank Welcome to Australia for organising the event and the Multicultural Development Association, who are doing a wonderful job of resettling people in their new country.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome to Parliament House today nine students, one teacher and one parent from Mount Beauty Secondary College, which is in the most beautiful valley in north-east Victoria—the Kiewa Valley. These students have come to Canberra because they have just completed a semester of study of Australian politics. They have learned about how our parliamentary system works, the role of political parties and independents, ideologies and, most importantly, power. Now they are moving into global politics, mostly focusing on globalisation and how we are all interconnected.
They are a dynamic and passionate group and, over lunch, I had the pleasure of asking them what they love about their school. They love the teachers—great news, teachers. They say the teachers are passionate. It is a small school, so there are opportunities for relationships to develop. They said, 'The teachers know us; we are a strong community.' Set in the beautiful upper Kiewa Valley, there are no fences around the school, so it is all open space, underneath the snow-capped mountains of Falls Creek. They love their cross-country skiing under the guidance of a two-time Olympic champion. They love providing support to small local schools to teach them how to do cross-country skiing. They enjoy swimming. They love cultural activities and the ability to go overseas, particularly to Indonesia, and learn how other systems work. Particular congratulations to Jodee and to all at Mount Beauty Secondary College, and thank you to the parents and teachers for the fantastic job you do in providing rural education.
I want to pay tribute to three outstanding individuals who, over the last year, have been lost to the community of the south-west of Western Australia. Lindsay Colless was a legend in the Dunsborough community, both as a member of the Liberal Party and an enthusiastic member of the volunteer bush fire brigade. He was a great supporter of me personally and of my office, and I will sorely miss his wise counsel.
I always regarded Garth Hammond as the father of Yallingup. He was a fierce advocate of his local community and of the Liberal Party. Another great supporter of my office and of me personally, Garth was also a great help and gave great advice. We all miss him.
In Boyanup, the name Jack Kitchen always loomed large. A former shire president and dairy farmer of great renown, I knew Jack personally and always valued his input. As a fellow dairy farmer who made great use of the genetic line he created, I salute his service to the community, the dairy industry and the Liberal Party, which he joined so long ago that nobody can actually find the records! Jack and his family have made a huge difference to the genetic make-up of the Friesian herd in the whole south-west of Western Australia. Much of the breeding in our own individual herd has been based on the genetics that came out of the Kitchen business.
Yesterday I attended an annual memorial service in the town of Cessnock, hosted by the CFMEU, northern mining and energy division. I was honoured to lay a wreath on behalf of the people of Newcastle at the Jim Comerford Miners Memorial Wall.
This is a wall that lists the names of 1,800 men, women and children—boys, primarily—who have been killed on mining leases in the Hunter region district coalfields over the years. There are few of us from the Newcastle and Hunter region who do not have family members who have been victims of accidents and either injured at the coalfields or indeed killed.
It was an absolute honour to lay the wreath on this occasion and reflect on the incredible, noble work that the trade union movement does in the area to ensure the health and safety of those who work in dangerous industries.
I know that there are many people in this parliament who regard this union as public enemy No. 1, but I would like to put on record the noble work that this union does in terms of ensuring that miners, who put their lives at risk every day, are kept safe. (Time expired)
Kyogle Public School's Wakakirri performing arts team has progressed to the Queensland state finals at the Logan Entertainment Centre this Wednesday. In a combination of drama and dance, the school performed its piece, Believe in your selfie, the story of an unassuming 10-year-old who is trying to fit in. It was named the best social awareness story award in division 2—one of five schools to make it to the division 2 finals.
I congratulate them and I thank the teachers Taryn Fields, Chiara Cole and Erin Reeves, with the assistance of Bruce Newton, Joy Newman, Barbara Runciman and the 48 students ranging from year 3 to year 6. I will just name those 48 students: Jessica Cox, Dylan Cox, Taja Poulston, Mika Adar, Isabelle Green, James Green, Jessie Keevers, Elexis Webb, Riley Breen, Codie Barnes, Ciska Laahoven, Skyla Lawson, Nate Lawson, Chloe Bolliger, Angus Parker, Piper Parker, Teale Downs, Joanne Murphy, Emily Newton, Jasmine Graham, Crystal Rose, Bridgette Hoffman, Deakin Shutter, Lysten Scott, Tom Moorhouse, Macee Deszecsar, Charlotte Endres, Emelia Nelson, Charisma Morgan-McAnily, Faryn Johnston, Ebony Webb, Aliviah Ord, Lahkisha Walker, Anniqua Baker-Alvos, Cody Baker-Alvos, Roseablla Charles, Hayley Butler, Joshua Parkyn, Brian Paryn, Alydia Murray, Kalahni Spargo, Sean Preito-Clarke, Chloe Zeiler, Ruby Hill, Joe Nettleton, Jordan Clark, Elana Smith and Tyson Clark—I congratulate you all.
It seems that the government is finally getting the message. When you attack the egalitarian heart that beats in this country, when you say, 'We're going to make you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to go to university' or 'We're going to charge you more if you're poor to go and see the doctor,' people will fight back and you will pay for it. When President Obama gets up and says that leaders who treat climate change without the seriousness that it deserves and instead treat it like a joke, whether the boom mike is operating at the time or not, do not deserve to be called leaders.
Today they have finally got the message, and I am pleased that it is the member for Wentworth who is sticking his hand up, because he would certainly be a better alternative than the one we have got at the moment as our Prime Minister. But my worry is this: he will sell his soul to the hard right, climate-denying, inequality-loving rump in his party in order to get the job.
There is one lesson that this government seems to be incapable of learning—and I wonder whether the member for Wentworth will be able to learn it—that is, the problem is not the salesperson; the problem is what you are trying to sell. People around this country will be watching you and watching this party like a hawk. People will be prepared to give the new leadership, should there be one of this country, a chance and the benefit of the doubt. But, if you insist on ripping at the heart of egalitarian Australia, you will suffer the same fate.
I want to share with people in Australia at large and in this chamber a celebration of the fact that our new-look Australian Anti-Dumping Commission at last is showing real common sense and a sense of national purpose. The SPC case, which was brought back to them, about the dumping of canned tomatoes—a case which had not been satisfactorily resolved six or so months before—has finally been resolved in the way that it always should have been. In other words, when the anti-dumping action was brought against them, over a hundred exporters of canned tomatoes to Australia—about 98 per cent of those exporters—were found to be dumping product. But the two big ones, who constituted 50 per cent of the market of canned tomatoes into Coles, Woolies and IGA, got off, because it was not considered that the subsidies paid to the Italian tomato growers under the European Union conditions should be part of the consideration.
SPC took that case back and said, 'Of course you have to think about the subsidies paid to tomato growers in Italy, because they bring down the price of the product that then translates into lower prices in export markets.' The anti-dumping authority took that on board and said, 'Yes, you are right.' Those two big exporters are now also going to have anti-dumping tariffs of between five and nearly nine per cent applied. That will mean a more level playing field for Australian tomato producers. We now have to deal with the three-kilo cans, which are apparently not covered by this decision. They are out there still, with dumping.
(—) (): On Saturday afternoon, I joined United Voice workers who have been working on the Save Our Weekend campaign at the beautiful Caves Beach in my electorate. They have been conducting the campaign on the Central Coast, along with a number of other unions. They have been letting people know what it will mean to them if penalty rates are removed. The Save Our Weekend campaign workers have been handing out information at the Knights games and have been meeting with different workers in different industries. The SDA has been involved, talking to a number of retail workers, particularly on the Central Coast and in Charlestown Square in my electorate. Those workers rely on the penalty rates they receive for working weekends. The nurses were also involved. My daughter-in-law is a nurse at the John Hunter Hospital, and she relies on the extra money that she gets for working weekends and for spending time away from her family, from her children. We had a family event this weekend and she was unable to attend, but she received penalty rates for working on that day. Penalty rates are vitally important. They keep our society— (Time expired)
Plover Appreciation Day is a day to raise awareness of the magnificent but vulnerable bird, the hooded plover, which is found along the sandy beaches of the east coast of Australia. If you have been to Brighton-Le-Sands, you may have caught a glimpse of these beautiful birds. Last Friday I met with local environmental organisations, including the Nature Conservation Council, the Mudcrabs and Places You Love alliance, who brought me a lovely cake in honour of this lovely bird. We also discussed some of the great things that Minister Hunt's office is doing to look after threatened species, including the $110 million in funding that was provided last June when Australia's first Threatened Species Strategy was launched, which provides an ambitious plan that will tackle feral cats to turn around the decline of 20 mammals by 2020 and to turn around the decline of 20 birds by 2020. The government appointed Australia's first Threatened Species Commissioner, who has brought a new national focus to threatened species and helped to mobilise funding where it is needed most. We also had an opportunity to discuss the inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations and, having visited a number of different environmental organisations around the country, to discuss the great work that a lot of these organisations are doing. I cherish that time with them.
Three weeks ago, I had the pleasure of being part of the ADF Parliamentary Program and being an active participant in the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program, AACAP. AACAP has been working since 1996 and has assisted over 40 communities. I was absolutely delighted to be hosted at Titjikala, a small rural community an hour and a half south of Alice Springs.
Part of the work the Army is doing there includes the building of a waste management treatment system, the construction of two duplex houses, an extension to the men's training shed, an extension to the AFL shelter sheds next to the footy grounds, the provision of health services to the local communities, a veterinary service and training for certificate II in rural studies, welding, construction, cooking and multimedia. Titjikala is a busy community. As well as hosting the Army construction and training, a new health clinic is being built and there will be a new sewerage system, curb and channelling, links to waste water treatment ponds and the removal of the old and no longer needed septic tanks.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a special thanks to the minister and the parliamentary secretary. This is a great program. Thank you to all of the Army personnel for your warm welcome, support, friendship and professionalism. Thank you to the staff of PM&C who do all of the background work and organisation—impeccable skills. Finally, I would like to recommend that the program be continued and that, in the short term, a review and evaluation take place so that we can well and truly understand the benefit of this program to the whole of Australia.
I would like to commend St Stephen's School, the Carramar campus, for their national success in the primary school's competition of the Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Awards. St Stephen's School received the Sheila Baxter Award, which is presented to primary schools. There were nearly 10,000 entries received from 655 schools throughout Australia. In particular, I acknowledge the great support of the teachers: Sandra Corcoran, a St Stephen's School's pre-primary teacher; Daniela Calabro, also a pre-primary teacher; and Nicola Byrne, a year 6 teacher there.
I was fortunate enough to visit the school, and I was able to read out loud to the pre-primary children some of their poems. Those that were commended for their great work were Ivy George for Easter Bunny, Olivia Edwards for Unicorns, Xavier Byrne for How do Leaves Change Colour?, Connor Hoggart for A Winter Tree, Jocelyn Newman for Cat, and Raphael Sarkis for Dragons.
St Stephen's is a very good independent school in the north of Cowan. I congratulate them on their success, particularly the pre-primaries and also the year 6s who were involved for a wonderful effort. They really did such great work in this competition.
I rise today to talk to about the Melbourne Welcomes Refugees project, which my office and I are running. Since launching it last Thursday, 16,000 people have put up their hand to provide practical support to refugees coming to Melbourne. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and support Melbournians are prepared to give to people making their new homes in our city. I am overwhelmed but I am not surprised, because Melbournians have long stood up for the rights of people seeking asylum and refuge.
Early last week, over 10,000 Melbournians joined thousands more people across the country to call on the government to take strong, compassionate action to support Syrian refugees. Once the government made that welcomed decision to accept 12,000 Syrian refugees above our usual intake, I knew that the outpouring of empathy and compassion from Melbourne and from throughout Australia would see people wanting to do more. Now Melbournians are not just putting compassion back on the national agenda but also opening their arms at home too. Sixteen hundred Melbournians having already put up their hand to say that they will take real action to say, 'Welcome'. These people are from all ages and backgrounds. We have had people at university say they would like to help by giving their time, and others who have come to Melbourne as refugees themselves saying they want to extend the same welcome they received years ago.
You can join them and contribute food and other needed supplies, donate, or even help host a welcome dinner with refugees in Melbourne. Visit adambandt.com/welcome and we will put you in touch with the relevant local agencies to welcome and support refugees on the ground in Melbourne.
It was grand final day on Saturday for the Grafton Netball Association. In A grade the final was between the defending champions, the Tucabia Opals, and the Grafton High School Pink Ladies. It was a fast-paced game, with the Opals defending their 2014 title, winning 40 points to 30.
I congratulate the Opals team: Karlie Chevalley, Michelle Price, Kayla Walters, Monica Hambly, Amy Coiling, Ashley King, Laura Warby, Jacinta Stoker and the player of the match, Courtney King. The player of the final for each division was awarded to Erin Blundell in the 10-11s, Cherie Skinner in the 11-12s, Grace Ford in division 1, Shiann Broderick in division 2, Darcey Griffith in C1, Emily Tanner in C2, Sarah Templeton in B1 and Tegan Fallow in B2. The association also gave out awards on the day. The junior player of the year was Isabella Ashbrooke. Courtney King and Lucy Howard took out A-grade player of the year. Debbie Bailey was awarded life membership to the association; and Amy Coiling received the club person of the year award.
Coach of the year went to Brooke Burton. Rowan Moore received an appreciation award and the association umpires award for recognition as an umpire went to Annabel Bindon for the juniors and Amelia Johnston for seniors. Congratulations to the Grafton Netball Association for a fantastic year and congratulations to all.
Last week I was very privileged to have two of the fantastic public schools in my electorate visit me here in Parliament House. Students from Blacksmiths Public School visited Parliament House on Wednesday; and students from Swansea Public School visited on Thursday.
These were young year 5 and 6 students making the yearly trek to Canberra to our wonderful capital and to visit parliament to learn about how our democracy works here in Australia. They attended the Parliamentary Education Office. They visited both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then I met with them up in hospitality. I talked to them about parliament and our own area. I asked them some questions about the different levels of government, and in return they asked me some questions.
It was a great exchange of ideas and information. It shows me what great students are being educated in our public primary schools. These were wonderful outstanding young people who really showed that they understood what government was about. They understood how important it was to have a sound government, a democratic government, with both sides of the political spectrum represented.
On 4 September this year I visited the HBF Stadium in Perth to award some medals at the Commonwealth Festival of Synchronised swimming, which was hosted by Hancock Prospecting. There were swimmers, coaches and officials from Canada, Jamaica, United Kingdom, South Africa, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand, the Philippines and of course Australia.
The event featured a number of swimmers and officials who recently took part in the FINA World Championships in Kazan, Russia. This included the Australian national team, known as the Australian Coral, who have won their way through to next year's Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. The swimmers took part in a range of events including, solo, duet, team and combination and the ages range from under-12s to seniors.
I met their president, Dr Jessica Yin, who at the same time wrote a supportive letter for the new aquatic complex in South Perth, which I have been campaigning for for the last few years. To Jessica Yin, I thank her for that. I also managed to meet a couple of the Australian team members—Emily and Jemma—and got a photo with them and learnt how hard they train for this particular sport, which is highly underrecognised.
The Australian government provides support but does not provide any financial support to this Olympic sport, so let's try and help them in the future. Thank you.
Colleagues, I would like to tell you today about a really exciting event that is going to happen in my electorate of Indi on Saturday, 24 October, in Benalla. Today, particularly, I would like to address all the young people in north-east Victoria: this day is for you. Here is your chance to get involved in parliamentary democracy in our own community. Come with your voices. Bring your solutions. Share your visions. Tell your friends, your family, and your cousins: Benalla is the place to be on Saturday, 24 October.
The Indi Summit will bring together people from right across the electorate to talk about what we want for our community in the short, the medium and the long term. We are going to focus on building a strategy and having a plan for the future of north-east Victoria.
There is an opportunity to be involved pre the summit to come and talk about some of the main themes into the arts: how do we get the arts, music and culture in Indi recognised? What is the future for agriculture and food? What are we going to do about community transport into the future? How do we solve the problems of mental health and jobs? So on Saturday, 24 October, come to Benalla. All are welcome—details on the webpage.
This beautiful pen I have got in my hand here says: 100 years at Anderson Street, Warrugal Bowling Club. On Saturday we joined to celebrate 100 years on the site and we had afternoon tea at 2.30 to mark the occasion. It was tremendous to be there with the president of the bowling club, Alison Matthews; the ladies' chair, Mary Baldwin; the ladies' vice-chair, Kerry Currie; the ladies' secretary, Chris Wilkins; the ladies' treasurer, Gwen Scott; the ladies' IP chair, Elsie Hefford; Thelma Young; Sue Haddock; Margaret Keefe; the men's chairman, Keith Wilkins; the men's secretary, Graeme Cobban; the men's treasurer, Peter Cusden; the men's IPC, Peter Gallasch; Jim Moyle; Vin Roche; John Vickerman; Kevin Campbell; and Rick McCoy. Peter Gallasch is also the club's press correspondent. Thank you, Alison, for the invitation to be there with you. It was a rather remarkable day, and we did reminisce on some of the minutes that were part of the presentation on the day. My father was a very good bowler, and it is always a pleasure for me to go to a bowling club, especially one that has been established for 100 years. They now have three magnificent greens that are no longer grass greens. They are looked after by the club. It is an excellent place for community and social association. Their socialisation is absolutely marvellous. All congratulations go to the Warragul Bowling club, especially the president, Alison Matthews.
On Monday, 31 August I visited the House with No Steps at Charlestown. The House with No Steps has a number of sites in the Hunter-Newcastle area and they provide an excellent service to people with disabilities. The Hunter trial site for the NDIA is situated at Charlestown, and there are a number of excellent providers located around the NDIA. The House with No Steps at Charlestown provides independent living programs. It teaches young people the skills they need to live with and to function in the community and make the commitments they need in order to survive. They go and have coffee. They go shopping and learn the skills that you need for shopping. They do transport training and they undertake social activities. The staff at the House with No Steps are dedicated, committed people and they really help the participants in their program at Charlestown to achieve their full potential. I congratulate the House with No Steps.
I had the real privilege on Saturday of attending a community event at Liffey, in the Northern Midlands of my electorate, to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac. The MC at the event was the former member for Lyons, Dick Adams. My thanks in particular go to Jilly Spencer and Dennis Chilcott. Jilly is the secretary of the Liffey Community Hall. Dennis Chilcott has combined the information relating to the 19 men who served in the First World War who also attended the Liffey school. We planted 19 Aleppo pines in their honour—and I would like to acknowledge the committee of the Liffey Hall.
The 19 names recorded were Les Saunders, who died in action; Colin Saunders, who died in action; William Swain, who died in action; Arthur Lyons, who died in action; Allan Saunders; Harry Bates; Hubert Black; Ern Bye; Frank Goss; Lawrence Saunders, who died in action; Harold Cutler; Thomas Priest; Jack Philpott, who died in action; Jack Bennett; Eric Ping; Louis Cooper, who died in action; Elton Bradmore, who died in action; Walter Saunders; and Lawrence Saunders, who also died in action. Nine of the 19 men from this tiny community who went to the First World War were killed in action, truly an extraordinary sacrifice. Lest we forget.
It gives me enormous pleasure to congratulate in this House today Catholic College on 'Romeo and Jules', their fantastic adaption of Shakespeare's Romeo and Julietwhich is particularly adapted to the Albury-Wodonga scene. To all the crew on Friday night, what a fantastic job you did.
I know that these things do not just happen, so to all the background crew—the teachers, the staff, the families and everybody involved in making it happen—I absolutely loved the show. The music was terrific, the dancing was fantastic, the use of multimedia was just inspiring and the translation of Shakespeare's language into modern-day Albury-Wodonga was particularly good. And the supper was delicious. But what I most enjoyed was the wit and the turn of phrase. I have to say:, 'Trains become buses—as they do. Keys to Mitta Mitta—as they do.' So, to the stars of the show: fantastic effort.
But I would particularly like to close by saying how really proud I am to be associated with Catholic education in Indi: you do a magnificent job, as do all the schools, in bringing art, craft, music and theatre alive in our schools and entertaining the whole community as you do so. So, thanks for the work you do—know that it is appreciated and that I am really proud to be your representative in this place.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Oh, the sweet irony of this place! I was going to stand up today and grieve about a whole range of issues. I was going to talk about all the failings of the government. I was going to talk about all the failings of Tony Abbott. I was going to talk about all the things they have done to make this country worse off—worse off in economic terms, worse off in social terms and worse off in terms of confidence. But I got beaten to the punch! Because no less than about 45 minutes ago, Malcolm Turnbull stood up and said all the things that I was going to say. This is what he had to say—this is what Malcolm Turnbull had to say about his own leader, about the leader of the Liberal Party—
Order! The honourable member will refer to members by their titles.
And this is what he had to say. He said, 'The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has failed this country on economic leadership.' And Malcolm Turnbull was right.
Order! The member will refer to members by their titles!
And further, he went on to say that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has failed the country in terms of confidence. He has failed the country in terms of confidence, and that is why we are having so many problems. His style of leadership is wrong; his style of leadership does not respect people. And that is what Labor has been saying for the past two years. For the past two years, what we have seen in this country is a failing of leadership and a failing of being able to deliver not only jobs for people but economic confidence, and actually being able to compete on the global stage.
What the Abbott government has done is fail to deliver on a number of key economic promises they made prior to the 2013 election. We can all remember when the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, ran around this country literally promising everything and anything. At any meeting he would go to, he would promise everything and anything. The problem is that he just cannot deliver. He has failed on economic leadership and he has failed on all the challenges that have been before him. But, in particular, what he has failed this country in is that he said he would fix the budget. He said he would fix the economic circumstances of this country. He said he would make things better. But he has done the exact opposite.
We were told things would be better. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you recall the 'debt and deficit disaster'—the budget emergency—the crisis that we had, apparently, and all of that? At the time, growth was about 2½ per cent. Today, growth is stuck at around two per cent—below trend. And it has trended downwards ever since the first Abbott-Hockey budget. The coalition has not only not delivered on any of its economic promises it has not delivered on growth either.
If they were just numbers you could be forgiven for complaining about it. But what it translates to is people losing their jobs. In fact, if we want to have a look at what the real unemployment figure is, it is much worse than this. When Labor left government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. Under Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, unemployment is now 6.2 per cent. That means that there are a further 780,000 Australians unemployed today.
Consumer confidence is 15 per cent lower than it was at the election in 2013. Business confidence is at its lowest since mid-2013. There is just no good news—there is just no good news at all. Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP average was around 21 per cent under Labor. But under the last five years of the Howard government this figure averaged 23.9 per cent. So it was actually better under us. And now under Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, the estimated average in the three budget papers is 22.7 per cent—again worse. Why is it worse under this government?
We hear from the Liberals that this is a low-taxing government. That is a myth. It is completely wrong. What we have is a government that is in complete denial about all of the broken promises and all of the lies—and that is what they were. When you tell someone something that you cannot deliver on, then it is certainly not the truth, that is for sure. Many times we have heard the Prime Minister say that he does not support raising taxes but at the same time that is what he is doing. He is running around the country talking about the GST and putting pressure on the states. If he puts enough pressure on the states, maybe the states will crack. What this Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, wants—and he may not be Prime Minister for very long—
An honourable member interjecting—
That is right; absolutely. When we see him going around the country cutting the budgets of the states, making sure that it is more difficult for the state governments to deliver either on their health budgets or on their election budgets, then we have more broken promises from this government.
ABS data shows that company profits have fallen six per cent since the election, despite the positive cash flow effects of record low interest rates and the competitive boost from the lower Australian dollar. How can that be? How can the Prime Minister run around this country and say, 'Everything is fine; everything is okay; everything is better than what it was,' when it actually is the opposite? This is the bit I just cannot understand. The budget is worse and growing worse. The deficit is bigger. The debt is bigger. When the Liberals get to government they actually make debt. Gross government debt has risen to a record $384 billion. That is $110 billion higher than the level that the Liberal government inherited. Government debt will soon exceed $400 billion—not under Labor but under the Liberals. These figures have been pointed out by many economists and people who have put these figures together.
Sadly, the legacy of broken promises has been repeated in so many areas. Let us take one other area. Let us have a look at industry. Let us have a look at the absolute promises that were made to industry on the submarines. The then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, said when he went around the country promising everything and anything to anyone who would listen, 'Twelve new submarines are to be built in South Australia'—12 are to be built there—and the former defence minister said he would not trust Australian Submarine Corporation 'to build a canoe'. What sort of a government have we got and what sort of a minister do we have when that is their attitude toward Australian industry and Australian workers?
They said they would not be shutting down any Medicare Locals, but we have all 61 Medicare Locals being shut. They promised there would be no adverse unexpected changes to superannuation. Well, guess what? The super guarantee is frozen at 9.5 per cent and the low-income superannuation contribution has been scrapped totally. That is a massive unexpected change. It is another broken promise. Tony Abbott back then said there would be no cuts. As Leader of the Opposition he ran around this country saying that there would be no cuts to the ABC or to SBS, but one of the first things they did was cut SBS and ABC funding by hundreds of millions of dollars. They said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to schools, no cuts to hospitals and no cuts to universities, and it has been the exact opposite.
People today might be wondering why Malcolm Turnbull has decided to challenge the Prime Minister. Why has Malcolm Turnbull decided to do that? He is certainly not the communications minister anymore. That is because he knows, like Australians know, that they have been betrayed by this government. And they have been particularly betrayed by Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. That is who they have been betrayed by. They were betrayed by him when he was the Leader of Opposition and they have been betrayed by him now as the Prime Minister because he has broken every single one of his promises. Every single one of the promises made has been broken.
As I said when I started, there is sweet irony. I thought I would come into this place and make a few comments about the parlous state of our economy and why people in the community and business feel betrayed by this government. No matter what the Liberal Party thinks about business—big, small and medium—I can tell you what they are telling me: they are not happy with any of you. They are not happy with this government. They are certainly not happy with the Prime Minister. They think they have been betrayed because they were given a whole heap of promises that none of you have kept—that not one of you have kept. All you have to do is look at the Mackerras pendulum. Have a look at where your colleagues sit on the pendulum. Have a look at the 10 that are below two per cent—two per cent! Have a look at the 20-plus that are under five per cent. Have a look at those.
I will tell you one thing for sure. There will be some people who choose to leave this place, some people who will be forced out and some people who will have the indignity of actually losing. I can tell you this: there are a whole heap of Liberals right now who will be making a very important decision in this place sometime tonight—the night of long knives. Everyone will be on the phone, talking about their future because, right now, the Liberal Party does not have a future. It does not see a future because it knows, right now, that the revolt is not within the Liberal Party and the caucus; it is out on the streets. It is in every electorate—in every town, every city and every town hall—and it will be at every ballot box.
I am not particularly worried about Canning. Obviously, the Labor Party would love to win Canning, but it is a safe Liberal seat with a 12 per cent margin. They do not come much safer than 12 per cent when it comes to a safe seat, and it is in a conservative, Liberal state in Western Australia. I think that, just as Malcolm Turnbull has called out the Prime Minister today, Australians are calling out the Prime Minister. I think that what they are waiting with is going to be one surprise that the Liberal Party and the National Party are not prepared for. (Time expired)
This free trade agreement with our biggest trading partner and the second largest economy in the world, China, with total trade worth almost $160 billion in 2013-14 and a growing source of investment, was signed on 17 June 2015 by the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, and the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Gao Hucheng. The agreement secures better market access for Australia to the world's second largest economy, improves our competitive position in a rapidly growing market, promotes increased two-way investment and reduces import costs. It is a win for Australia.
Most importantly, the China free trade agreement abolishes taxes on Australian exports. The only way we can remove taxes that are applied by other countries to our produce is to enter into free trade agreements. China now applies a 20 per cent tax to Australian dairy produce, a 25 per cent tax to our beef exports, a 23 per cent tax to our lamb exports and a 20 per cent tax to our wine exports. All will be gone under this trade agreement with China.
In the electorate of Macquarie, there are many significant industries—in particular, agriculture and tourism. Today, I would like to speak on the benefits of the China free trade agreement, particularly to the tourism industry, but first I would like to speak about the myths, scaremongering and, most concerning, untruths about ChAFTA. The very well respected Kate Carnell, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has said:
ChAFTA is the culmination of diplomatic efforts to create a strong relationship with China that commenced with the Whitlam Government in 1972. Since then China has become our largest trading partner and a major investor in Australia. It has underpinned the development of our economy and contributed to our current strength.
Kate goes on to dispel the myths of the unions:
Firstly, nothing in ChAFTA or any associated instrument allows hordes of cheap Chinese workers to come to Australia. The obligations of the 457 visa program will still apply.
This includes the requirements that workers shall be paid market wage rates, the same paid to Australians, and that employers must abide by Australian workplace laws.
Secondly, the exemption from labour market testing (LMT) is no cause for concern. LMT is ineffective in protecting local jobs because no regulation, even one that forces an employer to advertise a vacancy, can force an employer to recruit one worker over another.
Other obligations in the 457 program are better suited to protect local jobs and will apply under ChAFTA. Sponsors must:
So the exemption for LMT does not allow for any use of cheap Chinese workers. Kate Carnell goes on to say:
Thirdly, concerns around the Investment Facilitation Arrangement (IFA) proposed by the memorandum of understanding with China are also unfounded. This IFA for infrastructure projects greater than $150 million allows investors to enter into a labour agreement under the 457 program. This avenue (also open to Australian employers) is more stringent than LMT as it requires employers to provide evidence that:
She goes on to say:
Labour agreements allow concessions such as those mentioned in the ChAFTA MOU, but no concessions are available on the need to pay market wage rates and comply with all workplace laws. Again, there is no avenue through the IFA for "cheap Chinese workers".
Back to ChAFTA and the benefits to the tourism industry: last year 100 million Chinese went on an international holiday. The Chinese have advised Minister Andrew Robb that by 2020 this number is set to double to some 200 million. For the year ending 2015, there were some 3.3 million international visitors to New South Wales alone. Of those, 526,000 were from China, representing expenditure in New South Wales of just under $2 billion.
The latest international visitor survey for Australia, announced on 2 September, showed international visitor spend grew by 10 per cent, to a record $33.4 billion, or $3.2 billion more than in the previous year, the strongest yearly growth since 2001, which was the period of the Sydney Olympic Games. The survey showed China remained the dominant source of growth, with a 22 per cent increase in visitor numbers, to 864,000, and a 32 per cent increase in expenditure. Chinese tourists are now worth some $7 billion to the Australian economy.
The survey demonstrates that tourism is one of our greatest strengths and can be our fastest growing sector this decade if we continue to leverage our clean, green and safe brand to position ourselves as the No. 1 long-haul destination in Asia. ChAFTA will maximise these tourism opportunities by strengthening the tourism sector in this nation. ChAFTA will support increased Chinese investment in the Australian tourism industry through the higher screening thresholds for private Chinese investments. Innovative new investment facilitation agreements will also encourage investment in tourism infrastructure. This will help meet the demands of the 1.5 million Chinese who are expected to visit Australia by 2022-23, who are projected to spend more than $10.5 billion in our economy. As ChAFTA deepens business and education links with China, business and study related travel is also set to grow strongly.
Investment will not be just one way. ChAFTA will deliver certainty for Australian tourism providers in China, and we will receive guaranteed access to the growing tourism market within China under ChAFTA. For the first time, the door will be open for Australian businesses to build—100 per cent—and operate restaurants and hotels in China. You could open one or 100. China has guaranteed that Australian service suppliers will be able to construct, renovate and operate wholly Australian-owned hotels and restaurants in China. It has also guaranteed that Australian travel agencies and our tour operators will be able to establish subsidiaries and provide travel services, tours and hotel accommodation directly to domestic and foreign travellers in China.
With China now accounting for one in every five dollars spent by international visitors, it is clear that China is vital to the sustained growth of our tourism sector. For the electorate of Macquarie, this is good news, as we have some 250 accommodation establishments in the Blue Mountains and some 85 in the Hawkesbury. Michael Sperling, the immediate former executive officer of Blue Mountains, Lithgow and Oberon Tourism, said, 'Tourism operators are in the business of tourism and therefore a free trade agreement with China is of course a very positive step forward for the industry.'
Of course, there are hundreds of service industries also attached to tourism: cafes, restaurants, wineries and great visitor activities such as Scenic World in Katoomba. Anthea and David Hammon are the owners of Scenic World, a private, family owned business soon to celebrate its 70th birthday in October this year. It operates, amongst many things, a cableway which is the steepest and largest aerial cable car in the Southern Hemisphere. Anthea has advised me that overall Scenic World visitation has increased by 5.8 per cent over the past two financial years. In the financial year 2013-14 Scenic World had 818,413 visitors. Chinese visitation to Scenic World increased by a whopping 36 per cent. In the financial year 2013-14 Scenic World had 113,485 Chinese visitors, and in the financial year 2014-15 this increased to 154,395 visitors, giving a total increase of 40,910 in Chinese visitors to Scenic World being. This is only going to increase under ChAFTA.
The Escarpment Group plays a crucial role in accommodation in the Blue Mountains and represents four major hotels. Ms Huong Nguyen, Director of the Escarpment Group, said, 'The China free trade agreement is critical to the Blue Mountains for service industries being tourism and education.' She goes on to say, 'The China free trade agreement will inevitably mean more trade and investment in the tourism and training sector for the Blue Mountains and this will lead to further jobs growth for the region.'
In a joint media release recently by a united group representing tourism businesses across Australia, the union campaign against ChAFTA was condemned and the united group stated that the union campaign 'threatens the future success of our promising export industry'. They went on to say:
Our industry is very concerned about the short sighted focus of the union’s campaign which fails to recognise the importance of the ChAFTA to a broad range of export industries and the flow on benefits it will bring to the broader economy including jobs throughout the country.
I congratulate Andrew Robb, Minister for Trade and Investment, for signing this landmark agreement with the second largest economy in the world.
I am aggrieved on behalf of the people of Blair and also the nation. Before the last election, the current Prime Minister made promise after promise to the Australian people. In the last two years, he has broken almost every one of those promises, with cuts to health, cuts to education and cuts to the pension, as well as cuts to the ABC and SBS, and he wants to increase the GST. Before the last election, there was a debt and deficit crisis, but the current government have doubled the deficit and have added more than $100 billion to the debt. Unemployment has fixed itself with a '6' in front. It has gone up from 5.7 per cent to, at one stage, 6.3 per cent, and then it was at a 13-year high. For the first time in over 20 years, we have had more than 800,000 Australians out of work and the Australian economy seems stuck at below-trend growth of two per cent. Consumer sentiment is about 11 per cent below where it was before the last election and new taxes and charges mean that Australians are paying more tax than ever before.
This is a government that was supposed to be a government of adults; it was supposed to be a government that would not disappoint the Australian public. It does not matter who your Prime Minister is, because every person, including the member for Wentworth, has voted for every one of those cuts and every broken promise, including in my electorate where I am particularly aggrieved at their failure to 'fast-track'. I quote 'fast-track' because it is what they said they would do for the last six kilometres of the Ipswich Motorway, which is mostly in the electorate of Morton, but it is important for Ipswich and Brisbane. Two hundred and seventy nine million dollars was across the forward estimates for the 2015 budget, but no serious money is available until 2018-19—yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister and the member for Wentworth. We saw, of course, Campbell Newman's LNP government ignore the Ipswich Motorway, just as we saw the Howard government ignore the motorway. It was built from Dinmore to Darra and it was designed, built and completed at $2.8 billion by the then federal Labor government.
It is not just that infrastructure highway; there is also another kind of highway—the NBN—and it is just as vital to local residents and businesses in the electorate of Blair. The lack of fast, reliable and affordable internet services is a substantial problem for the people of Blair. The telecommunications problems are a concern, and I believe that my electorate is a microcosm of Australia. There is rapid suburban expansion in Redbank Plains, Springfield, Brassall and Ripley Valley, where 120,000 new residents will make their home in the decades ahead. Since the 2013 election, I have held 177 mobile offices across the electorate of Blair and telecommunications is close to the No. 1 issue raised by constituents. They have raised concerns about mobile phone coverage and fixed line issues, particularly in the rural parts of Blair. There are issues for a young mum in Flinders View whose kids cannot access the internet to do their homework because the local exchange has no free ADSL ports, a small business owner in Coominya has a property that is too far from the exchange to get ADSL service, and a mature-age university student in Brassall lives close to an exchange with free ADSL ports but cannot get a service because their property is connected to the internet by a pair-gain system. Issues were reported across the electorate and every suburban town and suburb. There were reports of a cost of more than $100 each month for a service with a capped data download limit of 15 gigabytes.
Of course, before the last election the member for Wentworth was going to solve all of these problems. In particular, he was going to do a special NBN that was going to be faster and cheaper. In April 2013, the coalition promised that what has proved to be a second-rate NBN would cost $29.5 billion. In December 2013—two months after they won government—the cost had blown out to $41 billion. In August 2014, the cost had increased yet again to $42 billion. By August 2015, the cost had spiralled to $56 billion.
The minister has no-one but himself to blame—I should call him the former Minister for Communications, the member for Wentworth—for this blight, purely as a result of his poor decisions and incorrect assumptions. The then Minister for Communications was just $26.5 billion off in his calculations for the cost of the network. He promised that the coalition would roll out his version faster than the NBN.
The current Prime Minister went further. In an open letter to Australians—a letter that included the now infamous promise that he would lead 'a government of no surprises and no excuses'—he said:
I want our NBN rolled out within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.
The former Minister for Communication must have believed this slogan or hype as well. Before the election he promised that, under the coalition, every home and business would access an internet connection of at least 25 megabytes per second by 2016. The member for Wentworth has failed in his duty and responsibility as the Minister for Communications.
In the 2015 budget papers, it reveals that just 3.1 million premises will have the NBN or have it under construction by September 2016. The then Minister for Communications was—as I said—$26.5 billion out on his own costings. He is about 8.2 million short on the number of premises he promised would connect to his second-rate NBN by the end of 2016. His most recent guesstimate is that his NBN will be rolled out to all homes and businesses by 2020. He promised his fibre-to-the-node rollout would be at scale by now. It is not. The member for Wentworth has failed. The large-scale rollout of his fibre-to-the-node network has still not started properly.
The current Prime Minister and the now former Minister for Communications promised the people of Blair that they would get a second-rate NBN by 2016. All they get is a second-rate NBN at least four years later and at a cost of $26.5 billion more than promised. These country towns, like Rosewood, Esk, Toogoolawah, Kilcoy and Lowood would all get fibre to the premises under a Labor government with Labor's NBN, but not under the current Liberal Party government. Rural and regional Australians have been taken for granted by this dysfunctional government. Why do I use the word 'dysfunctional'? Because the member for Wentworth has used every word but 'dysfunctional' over the last two years.
This government will go down as one of the worst governments in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Don't take my word for it; take the member for Wentworth's word for it. Cabinet consultation has failed and economic management failed. Those were his words this afternoon, just after 4 pm. We have been saying for the last two years that they have been failing. But the member for Wentworth has belled the cat. He has actually told the truth about this government and how dysfunctional they are.
The timid souls of those opposite will have to vote between two failures: a Prime Minister who has failed and the member for Wentworth, who has failed as the Minister for Communication. They cannot get their figures right. Every broken promise each one of them has voted for in the cabinet: the cuts to pension, the cuts to health, the cuts to education, the cuts to Indigenous affairs, the cuts to aged care and the cuts to infrastructure. Every council in the country has had cuts as a result of the fixing of the financial assistance grants and the freezing of those grants—every council in the country.
Of course we know that regional and rural Australians are suffering from a lack of communication. They say it in my mobile offices and they say that every single time they come to see me about this. I have had the member for Blaxland, Labor's spokesperson for communications, come to my electorate and speak, and we had Telstra speaking with people about these issues as well. One of the big issues for people in rural areas is the ABC and SBS: a $43.5 million cut from the ABC and SBS, with more promised to come. This government has failed. The member for Wentworth has said it. We have been saying it for the last two years. I agree with the member for Wentworth, and the Liberal Party will have to make a decision between two failures and possibly three or more in the next couple of days. We look forward to it on this side of the chamber.
Cairns has a long, proud history in ship building. More than 270 vessels have been built in Cairns, including the Fremantle class patrol boat and the hydrographic ships for the Navy—on time and on budget, and they have been in service in our fair city for their entire lives. That is why I am very pleased to be supporting a Cairns based consortium in its build, train and maintain bid for the Regional Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement Program.
The program involves the construction of up to 21 steel hulled patrol vessels with an estimated $594 million, plus ongoing whole-of-life costs estimated at $1.38 billion over the next 30 years. The vessels will be supplied to the Pacific Island nations to allow them to continue to take an active part in securing their own extensive exclusive economic zones. The bid is termed the 'Cairns solution' and is being driven by TK Shipping Australia as the prime contractor.
TK is one of Australia's pre-eminent ship operations and maritime services companies. It has a long history in technical services to the Royal Australian Navy, the Department of Defence and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, now the Australia Border Force. TK will engage Damen Shipyards Group as the vessel designer and builder. Damen are world leaders in their field, with over 100 similar vessels already operational. They will be employing BSE Maritime Solutions facilities and staff in Cairns to build these vessels. The facilities BSE now own have repaired and maintained Royal Australian Navy ships for over 30 years. The RAN Fremantle class patrol boats were built at that Cairns slipway.
Also in Cairns, Norship Marine will be engaged to maintain vessels. They too have more than 30 years of experience. Then we have the Great Barrier Reef International Marine College practically next door—a first-rate training facility to support the long-term talent pipeline. Lastly, we have Advance Cairns, the Cairns Chamber of Commerce and other official supporters, who are presenting a united community commitment to a successful project. It is an absolute coup that these Cairns companies are working with others who are at the top of their field internationally. It really says something about the calibre and the reputation of our local industry.
Last week I welcomed the Cairns solution team to Canberra. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues who attended the briefing on Thursday. We had the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss; the Attorney General, Senator George Brandis; the Assistant Minister for Defence, Stuart Robert; Senator Ian Macdonald; Senator James McGrath; the member for Petrie, Luke Howarth; the member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd; and representatives from Senator Joanne Lindgren and the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane.
There is a whole host of reason why I am unconditionally supportive of the Cairns solution, and I would like to share these with the House today. When it comes to ship building and maintenance, quite frankly, we do it very well. Cairns has the largest marine service facility north of Brisbane. The Cairns shipyards built the RAN Fremantle class patrol boats, as I said earlier, which have served the Navy for nearly 30 years until their retirement. The two hydrographic survey vessels currently in service were also built in Cairns and these ships support the surveying over one-eighth of the world's surface. The current PPBR Program is supported from a Cairns base, and this continuity of service will provide welcome familiarity to crews from the Pacific nations. With more RAN dockings having been performed at Norship than at any other Australian shipyard over the past few years, having the patrol boat replacement program in Cairns will offer a seamless transition from current maintenance schedules to the delivery of new vessels.
The economic value to the local economy of the current service and repair program is over $200 million a year. If the Cairns solution is successful, we will maintain and develop industry-leading Australian shipbuilding and support services for the next 25 years. A project of this size will have a transformational impact—diversifying the Far North Queensland economy, with massive economic benefits for FNQ and Queensland more broadly. Our city has experienced very high unemployment for many years—at one point more than 10 per cent. We also have the highest youth unemployment in mainland Australia with one in five young people aged 20 to 25 out of work.
This bid could significantly grow local employment and boost the development of our skills base. It would provide over 200 direct jobs in addition to indirect employment of up to 1,000 people. Not only that, but it would encourage people, including Indigenous youth, to take up apprenticeships and learn a trade, because they will be able to see that there are job opportunities for them locally. It is also critical because, as the mining industry moves from a construction to an operational phase, we need employment opportunities for people with those technical and trade skills. We will be able to take those skills from right across Queensland and provide opportunities in our beautiful city.
Geographically, Cairns is perfectly located to provide cost-effective through-life support. The city boasts a world-class international airport, which is proving itself in capacity and capability over and over again. A record 4.6 million passengers passed through the airport in the last financial year—not a bad number for a small regional city. Then in July the airport again smashed records with nearly 20,000 extra passengers through its terminals.
With a tropical environment, we have a broad understanding of Pacific island issues and culture, geographical proximity to the area of operation, and a clean harbour that is not a busy mineral port. Also in the immediate vicinity of the Cairns shipyards is the HMAS Cairns base, a naval base highly awarded for efficiency and productivity.
Then there are the vessels themselves. Damen is a world leader in commercial ship construction and has developed the revolutionary sea axe patrol vessels. With the axe-shaped bow they are perfect for cutting through rough seas while maintaining a high speed and a smooth ride. This means they are also saving on fuel and producing lower emissions. I wish I could show you a picture of these boats, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I invite you to my office. I have a model there which is available for all of our colleagues to see. They look incredibly modern, but the real selling point is that they are actually quite simple inside. This is a major plus when you consider that the everyday operations of the vessels will often take place in remote areas and in testing tropical conditions.
Lastly, it is important to consider this bid in the context of the Australian government's broader policy direction for northern Australia. In the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's report Pivot North, we identified that there was:
… considerable scope to significantly increase the Defence presence in Northern Australia.
This was reinforced in the white paper on developing northern Australia, which stated:
The Government expects Defence capital investment in northern Australia over the next decade to be significantly higher than the historical Defence average, reflecting the importance of the north to our nation’s current and future defence and national security. This will bring a range of economic and broader opportunities for this region.
The Cairns solution is the only bid for Queensland, and certainly the only bid for all of northern Australia. Others are coming from South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania. Cairns is the logical place to construct and maintain vessels designed to patrol the waters off northern Australia. Further, the economic diversification and skills building this project promotes will be critical to the ongoing success for the development of northern Australia.
In conclusion, the Cairns solution really does have the ability to build Pacific national capability supported by the Australian government, which makes Australia and our Pacific nation neighbours a safer and more secure region. Our job is now to rally support at every level—we have certainly ticked all the boxes, locally—and, as a result of the meetings last week, I will continue to drive awareness and support among my federal colleagues, particularly those from Queensland.
It is up to the state government now. I spoke on Friday evening with Premier Palaszczuk and had a very positive response from her. But I will now be encouraging the Premier to recognise that this is a great project. It is great for Cairns but also great for Queensland. I have committed to passing on a whole range of information to her and I will be asking that she now comes out, on behalf of the Queensland government, on behalf of these proponents, and very strongly supports this initiative to show that it is not just something from Cairns. This is about all of Queensland. Let us get out there and do all we can to support this—and you, Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, as a Queensland member—Cairns solution. I encourage people to use the hashtag #CairnsForTheWin!
Thank you, member for Leichhardt. I am sure the enthusiasm of the local federal member will add great support.
Only two weeks ago the member for Cunningham and I wrote to the Prime Minister with some urgency. The BlueScope steelworks, in Port Kembla, in our electorate, is facing its toughest trading conditions since the early 1980s. On the best-case scenario 500 workers look like they are going to lose their jobs. That is the best-case scenario—the withdrawal of over $200 million from the local economy. These are hard times indeed.
We decided to take a bipartisan approach, working together with the Liberal Party members of parliament in the Illawarra and Labor Party members of parliament in the Illawarra, working across all tiers of government. We wrote to the Prime Minister setting out five clear things that he could do, because we not only have the threat of 500 jobs being lost but also there are 10,000 people today out looking for work.
Against that background, when there is a bipartisan approach of members of parliament to write to their Prime Minister and say, 'We need your urgent attention,' you would expect a response. It has been over two weeks and we have not had a response. Today we discover the reason we have not had a response is that the Prime Minister has been too focused on his own job to care about the jobs of 10,000 people who are looking for work in the Illawarra today and the 500 people who face the threat of being unemployed as a result of job losses in the Illawarra.
It was a modest plan that we put to the government. There are five clear things that are very doable. The first is to put in place tough antidumping provisions to ensure that if goods are being imported, steel is being imported, into the Australian economy it is not being subsidised and dumped and throwing Australian steelworkers out of jobs. We asked that they beef up the Anti-Dumping Commission. I have enjoyed some support on this call by some members on the other side of politics, but there has been no response from this Prime Minister.
The second was to ask for government procurement. It will not save the steelworks but it can be an anchor client. It is important that if this Prime Minister wants to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister he start by ensuring that as much infrastructure as possible uses Australian-made goods and creates Australian jobs.
We asked that the Prime Minister put Australian jobs first and Australian business first. I do not care where the business is— whether it is from China, the United States, Japan, Korea or anywhere else—if they are investing money in Australian projects then Australian workers should be at the front of the queue. If there is an Australian worker who is ready, willing and able to do that job then they should get it. That was the third of our demands.
The fourth was that we put in place labour-market programs for the Illawarra. These would be specific programs to assist workers looking for work, to reinstate the position of the local-employment coordinator that was dismissed 12 months ago—so that they can work with businesses and workers to find their way into other jobs—and to invest some money to ensure that we smooth the transition. This would look after jobs but also protect the way for jobs into the future.
It strikes us as strange that we are employing thousands of workers in New South Wales to rollout the National Broadband Network—and there is a lot of NBN being laid in the Illawarra, thanks to the great advocacy from the member for Cunningham and me—and we are bringing in workers from other regions to do the job when there are literally hundreds workers in the Illawarra who are capable of doing that work. When you are suffering from unemployment levels as high as 8½ per cent, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to bring workers in from other regions to do jobs that should be filled by locals.
There are five clear points, but there has not been a response from the Prime Minister and, frankly, we would expect better. We were told not six months ago that good government was going to start in this country. That would have been a welcome relief to many of us, because the economic conditions that have been brought about by this government cannot be tolerated for a day longer.
While members of the government are huddled in rooms all around this building focusing on their own jobs and focusing on the job of the Prime Minister, we would like them to be focusing on the jobs of those 800,000 people who are looking for work today. We have unemployment, which has gone from 5.7 per cent to 6.3 per cent. It is at the highest level in over 13 years under this government. While they have been focusing on their own jobs, they have taken their eyes off the jobs that matter. Of the 800,000 Australians who are out of work today, over 10,000 are in my electorate.
We have had the budget with the budget deficit doubling over the last 12 months alone. This is a government that was elected on a platform of dealing with debt and getting rid of the budget deficit. In two years they have doubled the budget deficit. God only knows what they would do if they were given another 12 months! In another 12 months, what would they do? Would they double it again? Australians deserve better.
We know that this government was elected on a fraud. They went to the last election saying they could deliver lower taxes, a lower budget deficit and maintain all the existing spending and everything would be hunky-dory. They said they could deliver all of these things while most of us knew that it was a fancy, a fiction, a canard, and that they could not deliver it. But that is what they promised the Australian people, and it is all unravelling.
The point at which it started unravelling was the 2014 budget where we saw the lies start to unfold: $100,000 university degrees; a GP tax that they specifically promised would not occur; and over $55 billion worth of cuts to hospitals and school funding. And this is the good government they promised? No, not at all. They snuck this one in.
We saw earlier today—just a few moments ago in fact—the man who would be the next Prime Minister of Australia, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, stand up and attempt to distance himself from all of the decisions that have been made over the last two years. He had some pretty harsh things to say about the Prime Minister and the government that he is a member. He said about the Prime Minister that he is not capable of providing the economic confidence that business needs. We know that, because consumer sentiment is 10 per cent below where it was before the 2013 election. With the litany of broken promises and the incompetence of government ministers from the most junior to the most senior, is it any wonder that consumer sentiment and business sentiment is so low?
At some stage over the next 24 hours, when a puff of smoke arises from the coalition party room and we know who the next Prime Minister of Australia is going to be, if it is the member for Wentworth, he will attempt to distance himself from all of those decisions that have been made over the last two years.
But there is one statement that he will not be able to distance himself from, and that is the words that came out of his own mouth on 5 June 2014. It was a statement that he made after that disastrous 2014 budget, when the untruths and the deceptions were rolled out before all of the Australian people and when members of the coalition were afraid to go back to their electorates and defend the budget that their Treasurer and Prime Minister had just delivered because they knew what the political consequences would be. Here is the statement that the member for Wentworth will not be able to distance himself from. On 5 June, he had this to say:
I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget.
The man who would be the next Prime Minister of Australia has a lot of explaining to do.
He might be able to distance himself from Tony Abbott. He might be able to distance himself from the existing Prime Minister of Australia but he will not be able to distance himself from that cabinet, of which he was a senior member. He will not be able to distance himself from the statements he made when the ink was not even dry on the 2014 budget. He will not be able to distance himself from the fact that for well over 12 months he has been supporting unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element of this government's first budget, from the GP tax, to the $100,000 degrees to 800,000 people out of work. My electorate and the people of Australia deserve better. (Time expired)
I am going to start my grievance by talking about something positive, just to lay the context!
I had the best weekend. On Friday night—or it might have been Saturday night—I went to a Sufi concert and I heard a great band called the Australian Qawwali Party, a group of Australian boys who perform Sufi music. If you have not heard Sufi music, Madam Deputy Speaker, you should: it stays with you for days and helps you deal with whatever comes! It is quite remarkable.
The next day I went to an Eid festival, Eid al-Adha, for the festival of the sacrifice, and watched some Pakistani-Australian boys dance their traditional dances. Then I went on to meet Rohullah Hussaini, who is a young Hazara refugee, recently granted permanent residence, having arrived here by boat when he was 14. He is riding a bicycle from Swan Hill, through Melbourne to Sydney and to Canberra. Then I went off to an Ahmadiyah youth festival, which also included on the panel people of Jewish, Kenyan and Somali backgrounds—you name it. I have spent the weekend with the world in my community, and it was a wonderful place to be.
It is of great concern to me that in the last few days, perhaps through some careless words of members of the government, there has been an impression given that some people in this place do not welcome the people that I spent time with over the weekend. I am not going to go into the details; I think that we have all heard some of those statements. It causes me considerable pain that some of these extraordinary young men, who are making lives for themselves, might feel that they are unwelcome. So I want to share with you, as my grievance, the understanding that I get from my community, because of the extraordinary position that I hold and the fact that, as a member of parliament, I get invited in in ways that others do not. I get to see this extraordinary place that we call Parramatta in a way that most do not.
I am a musician by birth, really—
An honourable member: A very talented one too!
When I practice, I am not too bad! But I am a musician by birth, and I was trained in the classical Western tradition. I started learning when I was three. I gave my first recital when I was six. I practised anywhere between two and three hours a day all through primary school and high school and eight hours a day for quite a few years after that. When you study a tradition which draws on 1,000 years at least of that tradition, you really are working with something that human beings have made quite extraordinary. As you get closer and closer to the mountain you are trying to climb, you realise that you are nowhere near it; you realise that you are in the foothills and that you will never reach the top of that mountain, so great is the combined human endeavour.
Then, when I was about 21, I met a man called Ashok Roy, who was a very fine Carnatic musician. He played the sarod. He has passed away now. I heard Ashok play and I thought, 'Oh my God, there's another mountain!'
A thousand years have gone into my mountain and my life and here is a man who has drawn on more thousands than that to perfect this form, which is equal in its difficulty and complexity, and in its history, to Western classical music. Here I was, for the first time, really understanding that it takes a lifetime to be good at being one person, and there I could sit and share this moment of someone else's life who drew on thousands of years.
For me, that is the experience when I meet a person who comes from a different cultural background. When I meet a person who comes from the Hindu background, that draws on thousands of years, when I hear them speak whatever language is theirs—particularly if they come from India it could be one of many—I know that thousands of years have gone into that community working out how they engage with each other and how they build good lives.
It is not just the complexity of what a good person is or is not; it is simple things, like how far away you are when you make eye contact. That is more or less dependent on how well you know them. How long you pause and the inflection in your voice—a whole range of things that you see children learn when they are very young when they are really struggling every day to learn the complexities of culture that we carry in us as if they were the norm.
I sit in a community where I can access and share the wisdom of thousands of years that exist in the lives of the people who are my neighbours. I met a young man recently who, at the age of 18, was about pretty much equal in Hindi and English, and I thought—good parents. They raised him in Australia to be able to speak equally the language of his parents and the language of his new home. He was telling me how sometimes he can express a concept in English but he cannot express it in Hindi, and sometimes he can say something in Hindi but there are no English words. It reminded me of when I realised that even the Hindi greeting of 'namaste' has no actual English translation. The closest we can come to it is, 'My spirit sees your spirit'. But in the Hindu faith 'spirit' has a different meaning and 'sees you' has a different meaning. As a Western girl in the English tradition, I will never really understand what that means any more than I will understand 'geewarimi nullawlla' which is 'stay and rest a while' in Dharug, which is the language that was spoken in my electorate for many thousands of years.
We are perhaps one of the most fortunate countries in the world, because we opened our doors and the world came in. We invited it in, and it settled here with its culture and its history and its traditions and its understandings of the world from slightly different perspectives. A phrase that I use often to remind myself is, 'Know who I am and be good at it'. It means one thing to a person from the West and it means something completely different to a Hindu. It means something completely different to a person of the Hindu faith. I have an inkling, now, of what that means to people who come from this incredibly successful and strong cultural background. It is the same as religion: we have much to learn from each other.
Again, I have a very diverse community. Each time I visit a religious location, or meet the religious leaders, I learn something. My Buddhist community gave me a glass lotus flower, probably several years ago, and I used to carry it around in my handbag for quite some time because they said to me when they gave it to me that a lotus flower, like politicians, lives in the slime and the mud, but the lotus flower remains pure. For quite some time, I carried this lotus flower around. Again, there are thousands of years of tradition behind that very simple statement. A person who does not come from that tradition cannot live that life—from the time of birth learn that culture and carry it within you. But you can visit it, because your neighbours have it and they will share with you what they can.
The Hindu community gave me a Ganesha. There is a Ganesha festival in Parramatta next week, where I hope we will be able to submerge the Ganesha in the Parramatta River. But if not, we will eventually be able to do that. When they gave me a Ganesha they said to me, 'This is the god for overcoming obstacles within'. Again, it is a really interesting tradition. It means an incredible amount to the Hindu community, that notion that the greatest obstacles are within and that all the battles in the stories that you read that come from the Gita are about these mythical battles between the good and evil is in us. It is a really interesting religion.
I spent the weekend with my Muslim community—almost entirely with young boys, I have to note. I noticed that my Facebook page had photo after photo of me spending time with the various young boys in my Muslim community, and they are a wonderful lot. But they taught me something too, which I think is really interesting. I was talking to one of the young parents once during Ramadan and I asked him whether his six-year-old had started fasting yet and he said: 'No, but he's practising. He's learning restraint. He fasted for half an hour before breakfast today; he just put it off for half an hour. So he's learning restraint.' So there you have a religion where, right from a young age, they practise and learn restraint as a technique. In Ramadan it is the person who lives the simple life that is the hero—not the person who achieves a great deal but the person who achieves simplicity and humility in their life. Again, these are incredibly complex notions that have developed within those cultural backgrounds for hundreds of years to get to the point where they are today, where they can walk into my community and I can sit down with them and I can look in the window at thousands of years of history and tradition and see a tiny bit of what it is. It makes me richer; it makes us richer. For those in this House that are afraid of difference, just remember that understanding difference is also incredibly powerful. Understanding difference is also the answer; it is not just the problem. My community has that answer in spades. We are extraordinary, we have the world in us and it makes us rich.
Today I would like to once again speak about a modern problem, a problem that concerns many of my constituents in Cowan. It is a problem—well, a challenge—that has become such an essential part of modern life that it is essentially hard to operate without it, and the problem is internet connectivity. This is not the first time I have raised this issue in federal parliament, and it will not be the last until I secure the best possible deal for local residents.
Although a majority of my electorate registers above or around the national average for internet connectivity, there remain a number of areas in which connectivity is poor, and not a week or, dare I say, a day goes by where I do not receive an email, a phone call or a letter from a constituent raising their concerns over slow internet speeds, lack of port availability, no internet connection at all or having to use 4G connections in business and homes because conventional plans are not available to them, and, of course, the perennial problem of distance from exchange. However, already nearly 10,000 premises in Cowan have been listed on NBN's national rollout plan, which serves as a good starting point for more work to be done. Regardless of the causes which prompt residents to contact me in my office, action has been taken and will continue to be taken to get the best possible results for Cowan.
From my doorknocking I already know much about this problem and the real problems residents face. In Western Australia, Labor's plan to start the NBN down in the southern suburbs did not address priority areas and led to the delay of work reaching my electorate of Cowan. As has been shown around the country, they were hopelessly behind schedule and over budget, just like the way they ran the nation's economy. I asked local residents to be aware of false promises or shortcuts from Labor representatives who did not deliver the NBN after six years of talk. I believe that there were 35 addresses connected at the time of the election back in 2013—that is 35 in Western Australia.
From my work I continue to meet with the Minister for Communications regarding internet connectivity issues in Cowan, our most recent meeting being just last week when I met with the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Paul Fletcher to discuss the priority needs of residents in Cowan. That is why later this month we will be holding a communications forum in Cowan to discuss residents' concerns directly. Previously, I have outlined meetings with Telstra, NBN and Optus as we have discussed what plans have been put in place to allow for current communication issues to be alleviated and what planning was being put in place for the future. From these meetings I understand poor service is a problem of the distance from the exchange and the cost of upgrading those exchanges. Telstra Wholesale is responsible for providing broadband to customers of the retail providers. If consumers and residents need a better service, it is a formal process in which they should contact their preferred service provider for internet connection, and then they will run a service qualification for their address and determine what options are available to them. If residents cannot get the connection they desire, they need to register and stay on a waitlist in that system so Telstra Wholesale can see from their back end the genuine need for a service in the specified area.
Work is being done to represent my constituents' genuine needs and will continue to be done. I certainly take this issue very seriously. On a number of occasions, I have successfully—with Telstra and the Minister for Communications—alleviated the number of telecommunications issues within Cowan. Furthermore, the government has made reforms to the NBN that will allow it to be delivered sooner, at less expense to taxpayers and more affordably for consumers.
In my electorate local councillors and Labor Party members Hugh Nguyen and Domenic Zappa, continue to scaremonger residents into thinking that nothing is being done on internet connection and other federal issues, and that residents' interests are not being represented by these so-called local government representatives. However, nothing could be further from the truth. As a local resident in my electorate who has the same issues as other residents, I found it absurd when they invited a Labor Party senator from Victoria Park, 25 minutes away from my electorate, and a shadow minister from Sydney to address local needs when they could not address them at all in the six years they were in government.
In fact, during the six years of Labor, Telstra would not commit to some necessary upgrades, because they were always waiting for the plan of NBN before deciding if the upgrade was necessary. The Minister for Communications highlighted these inadequacies perfectly at the NBN corporate plan press conference. He said:
The project which we inherited from the Labor Party in 2013 had failed. Construction had stalled if not stopped in many parts of the country.
… … …
At the time of the election it had missed every single target it had set, and by a very wide margin. It is now meeting its targets. It is now available to over 10 per cent of Australian premises. By June 30 next year the corporate plan shows it will be available to one in four Australian premises. By 2018, the corporate plan shows that it will be available to about three quarters of Australian premises. This project is moving along and moving quickly
The minister went on to explain the great efforts of NBN Co in turning around this disastrous project and the benefits the move to a multitechnology mix has made:
As you know, the company resolved and the Government supported moving to what is called a multi-technology mix as opposed to undertaking an all fibre-to-the-premises build in the fixed line footprint. At the time this was looked at in the strategic review in December 2013, the conclusion of that review was that the all fibre approach would take four years longer and cost around $30 billion more … nobody knows more than the NBN because no one has done as much of it as the NBN Co now has.
So with all of that new information, new experience and really current insight into the construction process, the NBN Co has concluded that its peak funding requirement under the current model is between 46 and $56 billion, and their base case is $49 billion. And this is around $30 billion less than what it would cost to go down the route the Labor Party had set the company on when it was in government.
Over the next year to mid-2016, NBN will upgrade 1.9 million premises. The government has made reforms to the NBN that will allow it to be delivered sooner, at less expense to taxpayers and more affordably for consumers.
I understand the communications problems people face within Cowan, which is why I am committed to meeting with each stakeholder, including relevant ministers, in order to get the best possible result for Cowan. As more information is released on the rollout, my office will be working with NBN Co to inform Australians about what they can expect.
The NBN is a nationwide project that will be completed by 2020. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get to every neighbourhood in the next 18 months; however, Cowan has near 10,000 premises already connected, and I will continue to talk with, listen and represent the interests of residents in Cowan to make sure those experiencing problems are assisted at a national level to the minister and at a local level to Telstra Wholesale and Telstra retail.
Furthermore, I encourage local residents to continue to demand better services from providers and apply for the waitlists as this will demonstrate real needs in suburbs. NBN Co, this government and I are committed to ensuring the public has as much information about the rollout and telecommunications as possible, and we will look for opportunities to provide further certainty. For an update on the state of the rollout anyone can visit the NBN's online maps at www.nbnco.com.au/maps.
This is an issue in Cowan. I have been working on it for a long time. It has been a cause of concern for a long time. There is no doubt about that. I remember that before I was elected there were forums on this matter being held. But at last we can see that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and there is progress being made. I am determined to get the best possible result for the people of Cowan so that the people and businesses of Cowan can participate in the best possible framework of a well-connected community.
It seems that hardly a day goes by without news of reports of grave human rights abuses occurring in countries across the globe. Whether it is violations relating to civil, cultural, economic, political or social rights, basic liberties are being denied to millions of people every day. Particularly over the past 12 months we have seen and been confronted by pretty disturbing images of atrocities that have occurred around the world.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17 : 56 to 18 : 15
Before the suspension, I was saying that we were seeing the deaths and displacement of people almost on an unprecedented scale in Syria, looting and killing in Iraq, rapes and amputation in the Congo, mistreatment of workers in Cambodia and repression of dissidents in Vietnam. The one thing that all these situations have in common is that they are gross and blatant violations of international human rights law.
Despite the establishment of the United Nations and the enactment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, sadly, gross and systemic abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate across the globe. Within the Asia-Pacific region, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma are amongst the top countries that have the most deteriorating human rights record. I will start by recapping the situation in Vietnam, given that the 12th round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue took place in Canberra only last month.
Since the fall of Saigon in 1975, there have been systematic violations of human rights occurring in Vietnam committed under the one-party system. Freedom of speech, assembly association and religious practice continue to be significantly repressed and are controlled by a government through the misuse of law enforcement bodies as well as the enactment of vague and controversial laws. Before the human rights dialogue, I specifically requested the Minister for Foreign Affairs to raise a number of prominent cases with the Vietnamese government. Cases of particular concern included that of Tạ Phong Tan, who was arrested in 2011 for her critical blog post against the government; Dang Xuan Dieu, Ho Duc Hoa and Nguyen Dang Minh Man, who were sentenced to outrageously lengthy jail terms ranging from three to 13 years for their activities in relation to the Catholic Church; Viet Khang, a prominent songwriter, who was arrested and sentenced to four-years jail for writing a patriotic song about South Vietnam and freedom; and, more recently, Nguyen Viet Dung, a 29-year-old environmental activist, who was arrested by the Hanoi police for wearing a t-shirt with a South Vietnamese emblem during a peaceful protest against the government's decision to cut down the centenary trees.
In all of these cases, the dissidents have been completely deprived of the basic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association and the right to religious practice in an attempt by the government to maintain absolute authority over the social and political movements that it considers might challenge the government's monopoly on power. However, these occurrences have not gone unreported, with more and more Vietnamese citizens turning to the internet and social media to publicise their voices and concern. In fact, the internet has become a major trend, with more than 90 million Vietnamese people connected to the World Wide Web. Vietnamese citizens have used the internet and social media to speak out against these violations. Their demands for accountability are out-pacing the Vietnamese government's ability to shape public opinion.
In response to this, the Vietnamese government enacted what is known as Decree 72 in 2013 to prohibit internet use from sharing news and blog posts online. Many have become victims to decree 72, including an overseas Vietnamese student named Hoang Anh Ho, whom I met recently—as a matter of fact, last month here in Canberra. Mr Hoang came to Australia in 2010 and recently graduated with honours in a Bachelor of Environmental Science from the University of New South Wales. Having become more aware of the repression occurring in Vietnam during his time abroad, Mr Hoang took it upon himself to engage in social media to voice his concerns. To his horror, his family in Vietnam were threatened by Vietnamese officials, who also sent Mr Hoang a letter calling on him to stop all activities on his social media account, alleging that his actions amounted to an attempt to propagandise against the state. Mr Hoang's case is just another example of the tyrannical measures that the Vietnamese government will use in order to silence dissidents, even those abroad.
Cambodia's human rights record is not much different to that of Vietnam, with a country that is also ruled by a virtual one-state dictatorship, which has been in power now for over 30 years. Following the country's procedurally flawed national elections in 2013, the Cambodian People's Party has taken further steps to restrict peaceful protests, limit political opponents' ability to engage in policymaking and prevent the independent establishment of civil society organisations, particularly in the lead-up to the 2018 elections. Protesters who voice their opinion have had to brave batons and bullets, and torture is commonplace in police custody.
In January last year, Cambodian authorities banned all forms of protest to force organised labour in the garment industry to lower their demands for minimum wage increases. However, this did not deter some who continued with their protest. What followed was a brutal measure of suppression by the Cambodian security forces, who opened fire and used excessive force on protestors, leaving four young men dead. The authorities still have not conducted any serious investigation into these killings.
In the same year, a 27-year-old reporter, Lay Samean, was punched, kicked and hit with batons after he tried to film security forces attacking a religious monk during a protest in Phnom Penh. Lay Samean suffered a broken cheek bone, and his case was later dropped by the courts without any explanation.
These are just a few of the instances which have highlighted the lack of an independent judiciary system in Cambodia and the rampant impunity offered to the perpetrators of human rights abuses which are often law enforcement bodies.
Another country which has hit the radar in terms of its declining human rights record is Myanmar, otherwise known as Burma. The country's population of 55 million people continues to suffer ongoing human rights violations as hundreds are jailed for their dissenting views. Not only is the media completely controlled by the state; article 18 of the Right to Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law is often used to charge human rights defenders and activists who protest and conduct demonstrations.
Amongst these abuses, the Burmese Government has also carried out crimes against humanity through their campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya people—a Muslim minority. More than 100,000 of the Rohingya people have been severely discriminated against in the country and are forced to live in appalling camps, cut off from their livelihood. The government also denies aid to these minorities and completely restricts their movements in the Rakhine State.
For Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma, redressing these human rights violations is essential from any developmental perspective. Not only does recognising equal rights and fundamental freedoms promote social and sustainable development for a country, it also improves the country's economic prospects by allowing greater participation in global trade. Free trade can only properly function when foreign countries have proper policies in line with the World Trade Organization, which requires the enactment of appropriate labour laws and the provision of an independent voice for workers.
In the case of Vietnam, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is obviously an attraction to the Vietnamese government. However, Vietnam should not be allowed to participate in the TPP until it can tangibly demonstrate its promotion of accountable and transparent laws when it comes to the country's human rights situation. Only then should it be allowed to participate and take a place more fully on the world trading stage.
As Australia looks to develop closer economic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, we need to ensure our commercial ties help develop the ability of states to improve their human rights records, and that should be one of the issues that is required of any aspect of free trade agreements. Therefore, as we approach International Human Rights Day on 10 December, let the declaration pose as a significant reminder to us all that we recommit to the vision of acknowledging human rights everywhere, for everyone, around the globe. (Time expired)
All too often, members of parliament get into a frenzy of communication with their constituents—especially around election time, when there is a flood of doorknocking, community meetings and bombarding people with letters and brochures. However, I think it is fair to say that, after an election, this frenzy dies away, often leaving constituents feeling a little jaded and cynical. Since the day I was elected, I have been determined to continue the conversation that I had through the campaign and that I want to continue to have with the voters of Braddon. I have been doorknocking as much as I can. I have hosted over 30 Community Cuppas across the towns and cities of Braddon, meeting with locals in their homes, around the townships and in my office, and visiting many, many small businesses.
Part of this plan to keep in touch with my constituents is my biggest survey, which I will be launching next week. It will hitting everybody's letterboxes and it will give everybody a chance to tell me their views on a range of issues. It will enable the electors of Braddon to tell me of the important issues that they face—from the economy to infrastructure, roads, health and education. In addition to mailing the surveys to households, it will be available for completion on my website. I will be taking it to around five of the local agricultural shows in the next couple of months to make sure every constituent has a chance to have their say. Even if I met all day every day with locals, I would still not be able to meet with each and every resident of Braddon during my first term of parliament. I believe everyone should have a chance to have a say and have their voice heard, no matter the time of year and no matter whether it be an election period or a non-election period. This survey is one of the easiest ways for the people I represent to tell me how they feel on a range of topics. The survey will come to their doors, be available at their fingertips and will only require a trip to the post office or pressing the finish button when doing it online to return it to me for my contemplation. I encourage all Braddon residents to have their say through my biggest survey.
Thursday last week was World Suicide Prevention Day. To raise awareness, to reduce the stigma and to increase suicide awareness in our communities so that anyone can give and receive care, I joined with about 400 people last Friday night at Burnie Park for the 'Out of the Shadows and into the Light' walk. Sadly, Tasmania has an unacceptably high level of suicide. Nationally, 10.9 in every 100,000 people take their own lives, but in Tasmania that number is 15.1. In a moving service at the Out of the Shadows walk, I joined with the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, to unveil a memorial for people to visit at Burnie Park in times of remembrance. Last year I planted a tree. This year we unveiled a memorial bench and a small plaque on a piece of beautifully polished bluestone with a reflection written on it. It is a small but important memorial, and I thank all those involved in creating a space, particularly the King and Jones families.
The English writer GK Chesterton said of suicide:
The man who kills a man kills a man. The man who kills himself kills all men. As far as he is concerned, he wipes out the world.
It is often difficult for us to understand why someone would feel that there is no other option but to 'wipe out the world', just as we in positions of leadership in Tasmania struggle to understand the prevalence of suicide in our state. As we all struggle in our own way to understand suicide, it is important for us to come together as a community to support those touched by suicide and those individuals and organisations working to raise awareness of prevention strategies we can all use in our day-to-day relationships.
This week is National Stroke Week. Every 10 minutes someone suffers a stroke. In one week, almost 1,000 Australians are faced with a challenge as a result of stroke. The National Stroke Foundation is promoting three messages this week: be aware, live healthy and get checked.
The startling fact is that one in six of us will have a stroke in our lifetime. In 2014, in the electorate of Braddon alone 275 people suffered a stroke. Currently there are over 2,342 people living with stroke in Tasmania's north west, west coast and King Island. The National Stroke Foundation provides some simple tips to reduce the chance of a stroke. They are eat well, keep a healthy weight, do not smoke, keep blood pressure down, exercise regularly and keep alcohol consumption to a minimum.
As a country we want to shine the spotlight on stroke—educating the community on its signs and how to minimise our risk of stroke. Every person should know how to recognise a stroke. The easiest way of recognising a stroke is the word 'fast'. F for face: has the persons face dropped? A for arms: can the person raise both their arms? S for speech: is their speech slurred? T for time: call triple 0 immediately. Stroke does not discriminate; however, we can all reduce our risk and should encourage our family and friends to reduce their risk also. I thank the House.
I rise tonight to speak about two related topics. This government's cruel cuts to health funding and their lack of understanding of the support needed for those experiencing drug addition issues. Just over two years ago the Australian public entrusted this government to lead the nation. The day before we heard these words: 'We are not in the business of cutting health. Let me say it again: no cuts to health; no cuts to health.' Once elected, however, this government attacked Australia's health system at every level. After promising no new taxes, this government has attempted to slug all Australians with a $7 GP tax for every visit to a doctor, then tried a $5 tax and, as we know now, is now slugging through a backdoor tax a four-year freeze on Medicare rebates, which is forcing doctors to increase fees and restrict bulk-billing. The freeze, which commenced in July, will rip $1.3 billion out of regional practices over the next four years. In Lalor, with a bulk-billing rate of 93 per cent, this will have a huge and immediate impact on families. Our community, which already experiences an undersupply of health resources and has very high rates of obesity, kidney disease and cardiac issues—just to name a few—cannot afford a reduction in health services.
This government tore up Labor's historic health and hospitals agreement with states, slashing $57 billion out of public hospitals. But worse is the $800 million cut out of flexible funds—funds which pay for mental health and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. It is this last point that I want to discuss in a little more detail this evening. In my community, like communities across the country, young people, their families and their community are dealing with the impacts of methamphetamine abuse and addiction.
At the launch of the National Ice Taskforce on 7 April this year this government promised the world on combatting ice. The Prime Minister said, 'As a citizen and as a parent, I am appalled at what is happening on our streets and in our homes'—and we welcomed hearing him say that. Justice Minister, Michael Keenan, said, 'This is an issue we're not going to police our way out of'-again, a welcomed statement. Assistant Health Minister, Senator Fiona Nash, joined in, saying, 'As I travel around the country, particularly rural and regional areas, it's becoming increasingly obvious the rapid escalation of the use of this drug.' All three statements were welcome, but the reality is that we had a cut of $800 million from the front-line services that families are turning to for advice and support.
The actions that followed are worth looking at as well. The government has dedicated $20 million to an advertising campaign which includes graphic TV ads that are an almost complete replica of another version that aired seven years ago. They might create awareness, but they are also, in some cases, creating anxiety. That anxiety is sending families to seek support, but the services have been cut.
The government has also dedicated scant funds to a 'dob in a dealer' hotline which duplicates services already provided by the states and territories. I am told by young people and their families that the suppliers of this drug in my community use a pyramid selling technique: 'I will sell to you, and you have to find more customers.' So who are we dobbing in on the hotline? Our children. I think this is counterproductive. We are not able to arrest our way out of this situation.
In the last two budgets, the government has quietly ripped out a total of almost $800 million from the health flexible funds, which includes substance misuse funds supporting illicit drug treatment and rehabilitation as well as prevention strategies. We still do not know exactly how much will be ripped from the substance misuse funds and which treatment services will be affected the most. It could be any one of them across the nation.
But that is not all. Senator Nash waited until the last moment to extend funding to illicit drug treatment services that rely on the federal NGO Treatment Grants Program. This caused considerable alarm, with organisations telling their staff that they could not guarantee their employment beyond the looming end-of-financial-year deadline. What is even worse is that only a one-year funding extension was provided. The sector is still operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety. The entire handling of this affair has led to an urgent funding crisis that has made it extremely difficult for services to plan for the future, retain quality staff and make strategic decisions about how best to do their job. Staff members have left to seek more secure employment. Others have delayed improvements in their services, such as new facilities. Across Australia, treatment and rehabilitation services are falling behind and are unable to lend a hand to those seeking help to overcome addiction to ice and methamphetamine. Workers on the front line offering counselling, detox and residential rehabilitation are doing the best with what they have. They are working tirelessly, but with one arm tied behind their back because of the government's mishandling of ice treatment and cuts to vital health funds.
So, while the advertising campaign worth $20 million goes on and creates more need as people become aware—I am not suggesting that it is a bad thing that people become aware, but not putting the services in place once people seek help is catastrophic. I hear local families telling me that they are seeking advice, and some of that advice is that they should let their children get to rock bottom and kick them out of home so that they become eligible for support and rehabilitation services. What happens to a desperate young person then? Do they move in with the dealer who has become their best friend? The young asking for help need to receive help, they need to know that they can overcome a serious addiction and they need to be reassured that there is a way forward, not just be offered punitive law-and-order measures. We cannot arrest our way out of this issue. I believe we need to use fewer scare tactics and provide more support—real support and probably expensive support—to the vulnerable that deserve our assistance.
What of hope in this debate? The families I speak to who are living this nightmare are often frozen in fear and grief. They believe their child cannot recover. The direct treatment services I have spoken to say that this is not true. They tell me that there are thousands of recovery stories. I think it behoves this government to spend some of that advertising money on spreading that message—the message that there is hope. Yes, we have an issue but there is hope.
I suggest this government should find the funds for the ads that not only create awareness but also engender that hope so that families feel empowered to assist our young people. I further suggest that this government ensure that when affected young people and their families seek support they can find it. This will, of course, require funding. Firstly, this government should put the funding back to frontline services, give surety to those working in the sector, make the funding on at least a three-year cycle so that frontline services have that surety, find funds to spread a hopeful message about this and tell the stories of those who have recovered so that families can approach this with less fear and with more action—to make families more likely to seek support and to stop them being frozen in grief.
The cuts to health across the board are bad for my community, but the cuts in this area are critical: critical for the development of our young people and critical that we do not lose an entire generation because we did not offer them hope and we did not offer them enough care.
I have stood in this place before and spoken about a group in my electorate called the Belmont Community Group. At that particular time I linked them as an exact replica of Craig Thomson's Coastal Voice. The set-up was the same and the hiding of their affiliations with unions and with the Labor Party was exactly the same. I spoke about that some time ago and I am now going to speak about it again, to update the good people of Belmont and to let them know that the group is still there and still keeping that facade of being a Belmont community group when they are nothing more than a front for the Labor Party and the unions.
The ugly side of the Labor Party, which the people of Western Australian in particular have never liked, is the link with the unions and the fact that many of the key decisions that impact people when Labor are in power are made by faceless union officials who they have never heard of and who they have not elected.
Quite often the Labor Party tries to hide these links when presenting its image to members of the public. Part of the job of the coalition is to shine a light on this unsavoury part of the Labor Party so that voters know who in fact they are really voting for. That is what I intend to do today, with particular reference to some recent activity in my electorate. As I said before, it is to do with the Belmont Community Group.
When I was first elected in 2007, the coalition's vote held up very strongly in Western Australia. Part of this was a strong reaction to union behaviour from characters such as Joe McDonald and Kevin Reynolds. The coalition actually picked up two seats at that election in WA, against the national tide, including my seat of Swan. Since then union activity has rarely been out of the news, be it the involvement of the unions in the toppling of Kevin Rudd or the scandals of the Health Services Union and then, of course, the issues with the AWU. At the moment we have the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, which is showing the extent of union corruption across Australia. As at 19 August, there had been a total of 26 people referred to agencies, including public prosecutions, including in WA, and there have been four arrests made. Four hundred and forty-one witnesses have given evidence in public and private hearings or have had a witness statement tendered as evidence, and there have been 149 public and private hearings conducted to date, including in Perth. The numbers speak for themselves.
I must also admit that I do have a bit of family history in the union area. I understand how they operate, with my uncle being a former secretary of the painters' and dockers' union in Melbourne. My father and his other brother were both painters and dockers as well.
We have seen over the last few weeks the Labor Party, at the behest of the unions—such as the militant CFMEU—trying here in parliament to have the royal commission shut down on spurious grounds. I think this shows that the Labor Party will always put their union bosses before anyone else, and this is the reason the Western Australian people are so rightly aware of union involvement in politics.
In my electorate of Swan there has been a history of ugly scenes involving unions, many of which I have spoken about before. In 2007, we had Joe McDonald and Kevin Reynolds, in 2010 we had a dispute between two Labor figures now in parliament, Joe Bullock and Kate Doust MLC, which ended by affecting adversely the Labor Party candidate's chances on polling day. At the Senate election last year there were ugly scenes, again involving Mr Bullock, after a deal between the faceless union officials to decide who would be elected to the Senate angered their membership. At my first election in 2007, at the first booth that I went out to in the eastern part of my electorate, union thugs had been through that morning and had kicked over or ripped down all of our signs. And at the next election, they actually went to one of the booths and set fire to our signs. So we know that they are passionate about election day and that there is nothing they will not do.
In my electorate we have a situation where the AWU and TWU are trying to transplant union officials into the area. I have spoken before about the Belmont Community Group organisation in my electorate. I have spoken about how the organisation was set up only recently and how the group's organisers seem to be not just members of the Labor Party but, in some instances, members of the same family. They have recently transplanted into the area from not only the western suburbs but also Victoria. The head of the family is a former Labor MLA in Victoria. I spoke about how the organisation was at the time apparently concealing its links to the Labor Party and trying to present itself as independent. I received some interesting feedback from constituents of the Belmont area following my speech. They were completely unaware of the links of this group to the Labor Party. I think it is the secrecy that has so disappointed members of the community. As I said in my previous speech, if you are Labor then why not just say so instead of going to these lengths to hide it? If you are interested in the community then why not get involved with other local groups? There are plenty of them who would love the support. Why does it have to be hidden?
What I did not mention in my speech is that the executive of this group are all linked to unions. I will now talk about this more fully. The president of this community group is a member of the AWU, the vice-president is a member of the AWU, the patron is a member of the TWU and the secretary is a member of the TWU. So the Belmont Community Group seems to be a group for unions. Once again, you would not know this from the website or the communications put out by the group. Once again, it is a case of the unions and Labor not telling the whole truth to the local people. It is tricky, and I inform the people of Belmont today so that they can make their judgement on the reasons the group is not disclosing this information. A number of these union affiliated individuals are running in the upcoming council elections. It will be interesting to see if the union affiliations are actually declared in any of their material so that people know who they are voting for. I somehow doubt whether we shall see that.
What is the immediate consequence of all this? In the time I have remaining I want to turn to a couple of key issues in the City of Belmont, where Labor and the unions are letting the local people down. The first is the Belmont community centre. The City of Belmont has been trying since at least 2009 to get some funding for a new multipurpose facility to accommodate the library, senior citizens centre, Belmont Museum, a creche and a cafe as well as providing facilities for the community groups and important not-for-profit providers. This development is vital for residents as a number of existing facilities are falling apart or are beyond their lifespan. The council advises that housing these services together in a new development is the most cost-effective way if they are to provide these services into the future without increasing the rates. The facility has been planned since well before 2009. It is time to get on and build it. It is no longer an option to do nothing.
In 2010, we tried to get some federal funding for this project but we were knocked back by the Gillard government despite having the strong support of the council and local residents. The local residents saw it as a disappointment at the time, given that the money was going elsewhere, including to the new Leisureplex at Canning, and came as a double blow after Belmont's NBN proposal had been rejected. The minister of the day, Mr Conroy, said that the Belmont NBN proposal was one of the best he had seen. But Belmont still did not get it because it did not suit their political agenda.
Now, in 2015, with facilities at the City of Belmont in rapid decline, the council has put together another submission for a federal funding contribution from the coalition's National Stronger Regions Fund. I understand that Belmont is seeking a federal contribution of $10 million to what is a $28.3 million project and will be seeking funds from other sources as well. I have offered my support to this application, which is currently being considered, as it would be a significant contribution to the overall project and take some significant pressure off the council in funding this development. We must also remember that the whole area is the second lowest rated SES area in the whole state. So this is an area that actually needs help and funding. However, unfortunately Labor continues to stand in the way of efforts to achieve the funding, and I understand that the local Labor MLC, Ms Rowe, is not providing a letter of support to the application currently being considered by the government. Ms Rowe happens to also be involved in the Belmont Community Group and the TWU. As you would know, broad support is helpful when pushing funding in Canberra, and the lack of support being offered by Labor just makes this task more challenging. The project is being considered now, and it is not the best message for Labor to be sending.
Finally, I want to mention another project relevant to the Belmont area which is under threat because of the Labor Party and its union links: the Perth Freight Link project. It is designed to improve access of freight from the Kewdale and Welshpool industrial areas to the Fremantle port. It enjoys the support of many in the community and the coalition as a means of boosting economic growth from jobs in Perth. There is, however, a split in the Labor Party that is putting all this at risk. A group led by the member for Perth is now opposing the project outright, and this now seems to be the position of many of the Labor Party. Part of the reason seems to be the pressure from the green groups and the Greens party, as the road crosses a wetland. On the other hand, the TWU has come out in support of the project, as they see that it would be good for their members. I am not sure where Ms Rowe MLC stands, as she is a TWU member and also, obviously, a member of the Labor Party. These vital projects are necessary for my community and I say to Labor and the Belmont Community Group: get onboard.
There are times when an image cuts through the noise and haste of life and speaks directly to our core beliefs and values. The image of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy whose lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach, has done just that. That image had the power to stop and arrest us, and I know there would not be a person in this place who was not moved by that tragic, pathetic scene. I also know that the image resonated in my electorate of Eden-Monaro, and many people have contacted me to voice their views. It is for those good people of Eden-Monaro that I rise today to articulate my strong support for the actions the Australian government has taken with respect to Iraq, Syria and the ongoing conflict and refugee crisis.
I would like to outline three key elements of Australia's response to events in the Middle East—firstly, our response to the refugee crisis, borne of the Syrian civil war and the emergence of the Islamic State, or Daesh, whichever name you wish to use. Secondly, I will speak to Australia's ongoing commitment to the work with our coalition partners to degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. Finally, I would like to outline my thoughts as to why it is important for Australia to do both these things. Last week the Australian government announced a generous, prudent and proportionate package of assistance in response to the Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian crisis. I will remind the House that this package comprised a total of 12,000 humanitarian visas to be made available for those who have been displaced by conflicts in Syria and Iraq. This is above and beyond our existing humanitarian program of 13,750, which will rise to 18,750 in 2018-19. Additionally, we announced an increase in humanitarian assistance to 240,000 displaced people affected by the conflict in Syria and Iraq, at a cost of $44 million. It is important to point out that Australia's humanitarian program is global and non-discriminatory. This means that people will be selected for resettlement not on the basis of their religion, sect or ethnicity but, rather, according to the nature of their individual claims for protection. It follows, therefore, that many of these refugees will be drawn from persecuted ethnic and religious minorities.
We all need to step up and offer assistance. Some analysts say that the sheer volume of people movements we are seeing is unprecedented since World War II. The response will require the support of all Australian governments and a great many of our community organisations. I am pleased to note that in my home state of New South Wales Premier Mike Baird has welcomed this generous and bold response. Similarly, I have spoken with and have been contacted by many people from within our community in Eden-Monaro. Their expressions of support and goodwill inspire me. Their generosity of spirit and their kindness have warmed my heart.
I know there are some in our community who have reservations about our response. I can assure those people that all candidates for resettlement in our community will be required to meet all criteria for a protection visa, including health and security checks. We have taken this decision following a careful consideration by the National Security Committee of Cabinet. Of course the scale of dislocation of people in Syria and the unfolding crisis in the Mediterranean requires a strong and immediate response, but I would remind the House and my community in Eden-Monaro that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic image of Aylan Kurdi's lifeless body on a Turkish beach. We are moved by it but we have rededicated ourselves to acting quickly and decisively. Australia commenced the resettlement of Syrians in 2011 and 2012. Since that time, over 3,300 humanitarian visas have been granted to Syrians, principally under this government.
That brings me to the second element of Australia's response, and that is our security response. Australia has acted with the United States and our coalition partners in response to the emergence of Daesh and their impact on the Syrian civil war. Last week, the government took the decision to extend military action against Daesh in eastern Syria. It is important to understand that this decision is about Iraq and not about the survival of the Assad regime in Syria. We are acting with the United States and our coalition partners as part of the collective self-defence of Iraq and at the request of that country. As to the commitment itself, it will remain within its current parameters. We have deployed approximately 900 personnel, and about 400 of those are involved in air operations. We have deployed six Hornet aircraft, an air refueller and a Wedgetail command and control aircraft. Approximately 300 of our regular Army forces are training Iraqi regular forces in Taji and approximately 200 of our Special Forces are training Iraqi counter-terrorism units. This is an important contribution to the collective self-defence of Iraq.
In September last year the government of Iraq conveyed a request to the United Nations Security Council for the US led international coalition to assist by extending its operations to Daesh controlled areas beyond Iraq's borders. This decision and this commitment has a strong grounding in international law. As the Attorney-General laid out last week, the principle of collective self-defence may extend to interventions beyond the borders of a requesting state, in this case Iraq, if four conditions are met. First, the requesting state must be subject to, or be imminently at risk of, armed attacks from elements based beyond its borders. Second, there must be no effective means reasonably available to address those attacks other than the use of force. Third, the host state, in this case Syria, must have demonstrated that it is unwilling or unable to restrain attacks emanating from within its borders. Finally, the state under attack must have requested the assistance of other states to defend itself. All four of these conditions have been satisfied. The same legal principle that supported Australia's original acceptance of Iraq's request for international assistance, collective self-defence, is equally applicable to the expanded air warfare against Daesh forces beyond the Iraqi border. But it is not simply that which is legally grounded that informs the government's decisions with respect to national security. Our interests and values are paramount in our decision making.
That brings me to my final point, and that is why we are engaged in this region and in this conflict. Our interests in the region are clear; so too are our interests in bringing this conflict to an end and easing the suffering. The consequences of ongoing conflict for a region already facing massive demographic, economic and social challenges—coupled with the weakening of international order, which the Foreign Minister spoke of earlier in the year—all justify an Australian role in the efforts to address the Iraqi-Syrian crisis. The corrosive effects upon sovereignty and social harmony of mass population movements and the enhanced lethality of terrorism linked to jihadist elements are a threat to us. The conflict poses threats to Lebanon, Israel and Jordan, countries with whom Australia and Australians have long enjoyed strong connections. It challenges international norms and instruments Australia has been instrumental in achieving and sustaining—notably, the chemical weapons convention signed in 1993. It is damaging to Australian efforts to encourage governments to control the transfer of lightweight anti-aircraft weapons to non-state actors.
But the scale of human suffering and the behaviour of the conflicting parties offends the values we hold and would wish to be respected in the Middle East and throughout the world.
I know there are those, particularly those who identify as international relations realists, who would argue that our interests are not engaged. I know there are those who dismiss non-material factors like values. I fundamentally disagree with them. I think this is a restrictive reading of what international relations realism and an overly narrow conception of what interest is. So-called arch realist Henry Kissinger made just this point. He said:
If history teaches anything, it is that there can be no peace without equilibrium and no justice without restraint. But I believed equally that no nation could face or even define its choices without a moral compass that set a course through the ambiguities of reality and thus made sacrifices meaningful.
Every government sets itself the task to define its strategic interests, but these interests do not, in and of themselves, provide the moral compass that Kissinger says allows us to set a course through the ambiguities of reality.
The human suffering wrought by conflicts such as we now see in Iraq and Syria challenge those narrowly defined interests and present us with the most fundamental questions: who are we, what kind of people are we, what do we expect of the world and what does the world expect of us? Australia is a good global citizen. Australia is an important global citizen. Our interests are engaged in Iraq and Syria, and our values are offended. It is right that we should craft a security response along with a humanitarian response to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:01 .