I rise in strong support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This bill is significant and timely in this government's approach to our national security and is part of our response to global terror threats. In particular, as we have been hearing on both sides of the House in this debate, the government's response includes amending the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. This aims to broaden powers in order to strip the citizenship of those engaged in terrorism, targeting those who are considered a serious threat to Australia without rendering them stateless. I will speak about this in more detail shortly.
But first I would like to discuss how this bill reflects the firm views of people in my electorate on the Central Coast. By standing in support of this legislation, I want to say to people on the Central Coast that the coalition government is taking your safety and your security seriously—for you, your family and your community. We want to ensure the community of Australian citizens, including the many smaller communities and suburbs that we love so much on the Central Coast, is made up of people whose loyalty and allegiance is to Australia. By doing this, it is important to emphasise that this bill enhances, not detracts from, the meaning of citizenship.
Citizenship is something that we all hold dear; it is something to be treasured. But, in discussing this with my community, I recognise that it is something that is not always articulated, because the meaning of citizenship is something that is assumed by most of us to be self-evident. It is about the values, principles and sense of pride in what it means to be Australian, but, more than this, citizenship involves an inherent allegiance to Australia. Whether we were born here or choose to make Australia our home, Australian citizenship involves a commitment to our nation, its people, its democratic rights and its privileges.
Yet, in this time of heightened concerns about our security, we are also confronted with some very real threats sprouting from a small number of people who are Australian citizens yet shun the values, principles and allegiances espoused by the acceptance of citizenship. That is why I endorse the intention behind this bill, which modernises provisions while also recognising the inherent values of citizenship, somewhat akin to a covenant that we enter into, that we vow to uphold.
I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for his important work on this legislation. In the minister's second reading speech, he said some words that resonated with me and that are helpful in defining our position. The minister said:
The intention of the changes is the protection of the community and the upholding of its values, rather than punishing people for terrorist or hostile acts.
As the minister goes on to say:
Allegiance is a duty owed by all citizens to their sovereign or state. A citizen's duty of allegiance to Australia is not created by the Citizenship Act, but it is recognised by it.
You can see this in action in my electorate, at one of our regular citizenship ceremonies held at Gosford City Council chambers. These are some of my favourite events and I attend as often as I can. Together, we gather with people from all different backgrounds, faiths and histories, who come together in Gosford on the Central Coast to take an oath to Australia and all that it represents. We hear the oath of allegiance, and every time I share this moment there is a real sense of occasion and importance. Our new citizens speak of pledging loyalty to Australia and its peoples, whose democratic beliefs they share, whose rights and liberties they will respect and whose laws they will uphold and obey. Then, at the end of the ceremony, of course, we also get to reaffirm the oath as well. Our new citizens, our new Aussies, are each presented with a flag and a small Australian native plant, which is a small symbol that reflects the rich history and culture of Australia, forged over thousands of years.
Another one of the aspects about these ceremonies that I love is that so many members of our local community come to support them. Family members and loved ones are there in support, of course, but so too are various representatives of our community—Rotary members, school principals, chamber of commerce presidents, RSL representatives, church leaders and many, many others. Together, we are able to draw the connection of what citizenship defines, reflects and stands for in our community.
It is not just in these ceremonies that my community have been asking themselves about what it means to be a citizen. We have been hearing these conversations and these questions in the daily heartbeat of life on the Central Coast. This is in part no doubt, because of some of the atrocities that we have seen abroad and, unfortunately and tragically, closer to home. That is why we invited to our electorate the government's Special Envoy for Citizenship and Community Engagement, the member for Berowra, Philip Ruddock.
We held a fantastic and important forum at the Gosford Golf Club recently, where a roomful of concerned local residents engaged in a very important discussion on what citizenship means and also on some of the more complex issues our world faces today. We also held a smaller roundtable luncheon at Gosford RSL Club with some church and community leaders to discuss these important matters. It was a very good day of discussion and engagement and an excellent opportunity to recognise that, while we are proud of having survived and thrived as a nation following the cruelty of world wars, depression, drought and flood, there are in 2015 fresh and pervading challenges we must adapt to and address.
I must say that in these forums there was almost universal support for the concept of the loss of citizenship for dual citizens engaging in terrorist activities. This was built on a discussion about how we as a nation can more clearly articulate and cultivate the shared values of citizenship for our next generation and beyond. In the forum, we grappled with the notion that the world is more closely connected than ever before, with ease of travel and the connections now made possible by technology just two obvious examples.
In answering these questions today, I think it is appropriate that we look at some of the more specific mechanisms in this legislation. One fundamental of this bill is to recognise that allegiance to Australia is a duty owed by all citizens within the state and recognised in law by the Citizenship Act. This bill seeks to propose distinct mechanisms for automatic loss of citizenship. The first is a new provision where a person renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently and in conflict with their allegiance to Australia because they have engaged in certain terrorist conduct. This can include engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist attack; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; or financing terrorism. The bill also expands on the current 'loss of citizenship provision' for a person fighting in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This holds that a person ceases to be recognised as a citizen if they fight for, or are effectively in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation overseas. The third new provision says that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if the person is convicted of a specified terrorism offence as prescribed in the Criminal Code.
I wish to underline that the operation of the bill will not render a person stateless. The bill only applies to those who have citizenship not only in Australia but also in another country. This is in line with and upholds Australia's international legal obligations. The operation of the bill will not apply to children if they are under 10 years of age, and the conduct provisions outlined in the bill will not apply to children if they are under 14 years of age. Judicial review is also available to persons who are affected by the bill, leading to loss of citizenship.
It is important to note that we are not the only Western country to amend citizenship legislation with the growing threat of global terrorism. In the United Kingdom, legislation has been passed which expands the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. A person in the United Kingdom can now be deprived of citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied they meet the new requirements. This, as well as other global examples, reflects the context in which we are having this debate.
Unfortunately, in 2015 and in the wake of terrorist attacks taking place around the world, the amendments outlined in this bill are crucial and necessary. Global terrorism has the potential to become local terrorism, and we must act to prevent this and ensure our safety is paramount. A recent review into Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising in three distinct ways. Firstly, the number of Australians choosing to join known extremist groups overseas is increasing. Secondly, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists and extremist groups is rising. And, thirdly, there are more potential terrorists locally in Australia. This requires a detailed, coordinated national security approach, and I recognise that our Prime Minister will shortly update the House on what the government is doing in this area. I would like to end on a personal note of reflection.
I remain shocked at the brutal and horrific events that unfolded in Paris on Friday, 13 November, when 130 citizens of France and 18 other countries were brutally murdered and many more were injured, in what was a coordinated attack from ISIL involving eight killers across six locations. This was indeed an attack on all humanity, on our freedom to gather and to celebrate, on our freedom to share time with our family and friends, on our freedom to walk our streets without fear.
I express my deepest sympathy to the people of France. And with a heavy heart I also extend my thoughts and prayers to those impacted by suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara, Tunisia and Nigeria. Add to this the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in a Russian airliner flying over the Sinai, the attack of a hotel in Mali, and ongoing extremist violence and killings in the Middle East and South Asia, and I find myself somewhat lost for words, unable to comprehend how a group of people could even begin to contemplate such barbaric acts.
The coalition government and its allies are united in our condemnation of these acts of terrorism and our commitment to defeating those who carry out these terrorist acts. As the member for Robertson on the Central Coast, may I reaffirm the commitment of the coalition government to do everything possible to keep people safe at home and, so far as possible, abroad. For this reason, I stand in very strong support of the measures outlined in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Unfortunately, this legislation is necessary, as the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. Australians are no strangers to war; Australians have been involved in conflict around the world for well over 100 years—in every conflict from the Boer War on. It is only in quite recent times that we have allowed dual citizenship—in fact, it may have even happened under the tenure of the member for Berowra when he was the Minister for Immigration, though I could be wrong on that. In the current circumstances it is as well that we did allow dual citizenship because otherwise most of those people to whom this legislation refers would hold only Australian citizenship.
I cannot think of a more sombre or grievous procedure for us to put into place than to take away Australian citizenship from someone who was born in Australia, like myself. You cannot imagine it, but it is a very necessary though serious step. The Bali bombing got rid of any naivety or innocence we had left. That a 15-year-old could shoot a member of the police administration only a few short weeks ago in our own country made us face the reality that we must do whatever we have to do to protect Australians.
As a government we have a necessary responsibility to ensure the safety of every Australian as far as possible, and this legislation is about stripping Australian citizenship from those who have engaged in specific conduct. Those whose actions are inconsistent with their allegiance to this country should not have the privilege of being an Australian citizen. The bill brings in a number of measures to ensure that those people who are not upholding Australian values and way of life can no longer call our nation home. The measures include amending the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause outlining the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based. It outlines the circumstances under which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism related activities. It outlines the circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill. It provides for the reporting and monitoring of the operation and the arrangement of the bill. It provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring.
Section 33A provides that a person who is a national or a citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct, and obviously that revolves around terrorism. The conduct includes engaging in a terrorist act or international terrorist activities using explosives or lethal devices, providing or receiving training, financing terrorism or a terrorist. Individuals who will be subject to these provisions include those engaged in this conduct offshore and in relevant conduct onshore and who left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct.
The bill provides automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia—that provision came into force in 1949. The bill builds on this by providing automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country and is overseas fighting for, or in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. The bill will allow for the minister by legislative instrument to declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section where the organisation is directly or indirectly involved in preparing, assisting or fostering a terrorist attack or advocating an attack. Organisations opposed to Australian interests, values and democratic beliefs, rights or liberties will also be targeted.
Once a person has been convicted of a relevant offence, the minister will have the power to determine if the persons citizenship has been lost. Loss of citizenship is not automatic upon conviction. The list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Offences of incursions into foreign states with the intention of engaging in hostile activities have also been included through the amendment. To be considered under this section a person must be sentenced to at least six years' imprisonment. The provision relies upon a court having determined criminal guilt. Relevant offences include convictions the treason, espionage, terrorism, international terrorist activities using explosive lethal devices, treachery, sabotage and foreign incursions and recruitment.
The minister must be satisfied the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia and the minister must determine whether it is within the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. The minister must revoke a determination if a conviction is overturned. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies will play a vital role in collecting the relevant information and will provide it to the minister. The minister will then give a person notice as soon as practicable or reasonable. The notice will include a description of the persons conduct and a person's rights of review. This does not apply to a child under the age of 10 and the conduct based on provisions of the bill will not apply to conduct by a child under 14 years. Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, if a child over 10 but younger than 14 knows that his or her conduct is wrong, they can be held responsible.
I find very strong support in the community for this measure. I am not sure there would have been once but today, in the world we live in, unfortunately, people understand the need for legislation such as this. We need a strong support from all sections of the community, and we do have that support. I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill. Many Australians do not understand that there has always been the possibility of people losing their citizenship if they lack commitment to this nation and its future. The circumstance in which this traditionally could occur—and the ability has been there since enactment in 1949—was when people might elect to fight with a foreign army against Australia. I have had the opportunity in recent months to talk to many people about this issue of citizenship deprivation in the context that the law already allows for citizenship deprivation. The test is whether you are, by your conduct, electing to demonstrate that you have no commitment to this nation first and foremost. When people elect to fight with a foreign army against Australia, that is the decision they are taking. If somebody is fighting with a foreign army against Australia, should we say 'You are still welcome as part of our family'? I do make the point, and I have had to make it to many audiences I have spoken to before, that I cannot imagine anything more heinous than a person electing not to fight with a foreign army but to fight with a terrorist organisation against Australia's interests. The point I make is that if you are fighting with a foreign army you are fighting with people who ostensibly will tell us they believe in appropriate conduct, they observe the rules of war. Nobody can assure me that terrorists, by the way in which they are behaving, are observing the rules of war. When we know there are some amongst our number who demonstrate very clearly that they have no commitment to this nation and its future first and foremost, it seems to me we are entitled to make that call.
This legislation is about how we go about that. It is legislation that has been considered in comprehensive detail by this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is supported by members of that committee right across the political spectrum of this parliament. Its report reflects a very careful analysis to try to ensure that you get the balance right, making sure that when decisions are taken they are taken in a way which demonstrates our determination to be satisfied that those people who have behaved inappropriately have been properly identified and that there is a process to test those matters. I think the legislation is warranted. I have had to speak to many people of many different backgrounds, races, cultures, religions, and I make the point every time I work with them that Australia is a country that has welcomed people from all over the world. We have done it more successfully than I think any other country. When I talk about these issues I make the point that Australia has one of the highest proportions of population overseas-born that you will find anywhere in the world. The only two countries that proportionately exceed ours are Israel and Luxembourg. When people look at various countries in Europe and look at the United States of America, New Zealand and Canada, they assume that they may have greater proportions of their population overseas-born than we have. Nothing could be further from the truth. If cultural diversity is a problem, we should have the most significant problems in the world. But we do not.
I think we do this exceptionally well through the programs that have been put in place over many decades to teach people English, to help ensure that they have recognised skills, to identify those who may come from a refugee and humanitarian experience and focus on the fact that they may have been tortured and traumatised and how are you going to deal with those sorts of issues, to provide welfare to people who may not be able to get employment, and to assist them in obtaining housing. If you look at the range of programs that we have put in place over a long period, we are a welcoming society, a welcoming community. We welcome people from all four corners of the earth, of every race, of every culture, of every religion. I make the point that as a welcoming society we do expect that people will have a commitment to this nation and its future. We invite them to come and be part of our society but we expect them to be as welcoming of all other Australians as we are welcoming of them.
This legislation, which does deal with the issue of citizenship deprivation, should not be seen as legislation that is in any way identifying or undermining our integrity as a welcoming nation for people of every religion, every culture, every race. It is about identifying properly those people who lack that commitment and ensuring that, where it is appropriate, we can withdraw the citizenship that we bestow so generously. I conclude my remarks by saying I think this bill as it has been amended is worthy legislation and legislation that we should all be very keen to support.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—When innocent people are dying at the hands of violent extremists, no matter where in the world this is happening, hard questions are asked of societies like our own—hard questions for which there are no easy answers. For all freedom-loving nations, the message could not be clearer: if we want to preserve the values that underpin our open, democratic societies, we will have to work resolutely with each other to defend and protect the freedoms we hold dear.
Following the recent mass killings of innocent civilians in Paris and around the world, I take this opportunity to update the House on Australia's global, regional and domestic policies to respond to terrorist attacks. Let me start by once again expressing our condolences to all the victims. Our hearts go out to the families who have lost their loved ones and to those recovering from their injuries. We should grieve and we should be angry. But we must not let grief or anger cloud our judgement. Our response must be as clear eyed and strategic as it is determined. This is not a time for gestures or machismo. Calm, clinical, professional, effective—that is how we defeat this menace.
The threat from ISIL is a global problem that should be addressed at its source, in the Middle East, by ensuring that our involvement in the coalition efforts in Syria and Iraq is resolute and effective. ISIL aims to overthrow all the existing governments in Muslim societies, and beyond. It regards as apostates any who will not submit to its own perverted view of Islam. Strategically, ISIL wants to create division by fomenting resentment between Muslims and non-Muslim populations.
ISIL emerged as an extremist terrorist group out of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria. Their territorial gains in Syria and Iraq have fed into their own narrative of conquest. By most measures, however, ISIL is in a fundamentally weak position. We must not be fooled by its hype. Its ideology is archaic, but its use of the internet is very modern. ISIL has many more smartphones than guns, many more Twitter accounts than soldiers. It does not command broad based legitimacy even in those areas under its direct control. It is encircled by hostile forces and it is under military pressure. And, through its depraved actions, ISIL has strengthened the resolve of the global community, including Russia, to defeat it.
The 60 nation strong coalition's objective is to disrupt, degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL. This will require a patient, painstaking, full-spectrum strategy—not just military, but financial, diplomatic and political. This involves a combination of air strikes in both Syria and Iraq and support and training for Iraq's army. Australia's contribution to the coalition forces on the ground in Iraq is second only to that of the United States and large relative to our population and proximity to the conflict. It is larger, for example, than that of any European nation, larger than Canada's or any of the neighbouring Arab states. We have six FA18s involved in missions in that theatre, with 240 personnel in the air task group, 90 Special Forces advisers, and around 300 soldiers training the Iraqi army at Taji.
The Special Forces are authorised by our government to advise and assist Iraq's Counter-Terrorism Service in the field at headquarters level. However, the government of Iraq has not consented to any of our defence forces being deployed outside the wire on ground combat operations. The government of Iraq believes that large-scale Western troop operations in its country would be counterproductive. Australia's service men and women are making a significant contribution to the coalition campaign and we will continue to support our allies as our strategies evolve in what is likely to be an extended campaign. In Iraq, ISIL's momentum has been halted, its capabilities degraded. Kurdish and Iraqi forces have won back territory with coalition support.
I have to report to the House that the consensus of the leaders I met at the G20, at APEC and at the East Asia Summit is that there is no support currently for a large US led Western army to attempt to conquer and hold ISIL controlled areas. In Syria, the broader conflict and the absence of a central government that the West can work with makes action against ISIL even more complicated. Following the destruction of the Russian airliner over the Sinai and the Paris attacks, Russia and France have raised their operational tempo against ISIL. But ultimately a political solution is needed in Syria. Only this would allow attention to turn more fully to eliminating ISIL as a military force. So we support the negotiations in Vienna to find a pathway to a political resolution in Syria.
Under the circumstances that I have outlined, and mindful that Australia has a range of security priorities across the globe and in our own region, there are currently no plans for a significant change in the level or the nature of Australia's military commitment in Iraq and Syria. No such change has been sought by our allies—if one were, we would of course carefully consider it.
We will always proceed on the basis of the considered advice of our military professionals in the Australian Defence Force, just as we rely on the advice of our counter-terrorism experts and security experts domestically. The current advice to the government is that the unilateral deployment of Australian combat troops on the ground in Iraq or Syria is neither feasible nor practical. As a supplement to our already significant military commitment, our interests—and those of the countries and people in the region—are served by supporting stability in countries neighbouring Iraq and Syria, particularly Jordan. We will continue to look for ways to further strengthen cooperation with Jordan.
The rise of ISIL and the conflict in Syria have increased the threat environment in South-East Asia. I have discussed this issue at the East Asia Summit and in depth with the leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore, among others. We are working more closely than ever to share intelligence and counter-messaging strategies. From an Australian perspective, we see a real risk that terrorist groups in the region might be inspired by attacks such as we have seen in Ankara, Beirut, Bamako and Paris and we are very mindful of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Australians visit South-East Asia every year for business, study or holidays.
Just as Australia cannot fight any military conflict against ISIL unilaterally, we cannot counter violent extremism alone, particularly online. In my recent discussions with regional colleagues at the East Asia Summit and at APEC I further committed Australia as a leading partner in this area. We look forward to supporting the new Malaysian counter-messaging centre and to further cooperation with Indonesia, beginning with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice, who is also the minister assisting me on counter-terrorism, shortly taking up an offer to visit Indonesia in December to hold discussions focused on furthering our efforts in countering terrorism and violent extremism in the region.
The Paris attacks demonstrate ISIL has an ability to launch concerted attacks in Western cities. It was also a reminder that, while coordinated, there is not much sophisticated planning required for armed fanatics to slaughter unarmed civilians with military assault rifles and suicide vests. As Prime Minister, and speaking on behalf of the heads of ASIO and the AFP, as well as the Chief of the Defence Force, I want Australians to be aware that a terrorist incident on our soil remains likely but also that Australians should be reassured that our security agencies are working diligently and expertly to prevent that happening.
In addition to being the most successful multicultural society in the world, Australia as an island continent has some natural advantages over Europe, which is currently facing the uncontrolled movement of hundreds of thousands of people. Unlike the Europeans, we are in control of our borders. For example, people who successfully enter Greece are able to move at will throughout much of the European Union. We are an island nation. The people smugglers' business model has been broken. The boats have been stopped. We also have very strong gun laws that make access to weapons more difficult and play a vital role in keeping our public safe.
As your Prime Minister my highest duty, and that of my government, is to keep Australians safe. We cannot eliminate entirely the risk of terrorism anymore than we can eliminate the risk of any serious crime. But we can mitigate it. We will continue to thwart and frustrate many attacks before they occur. We are examining closely the implications of the Paris attacks for our own domestic arrangements. I am receiving updated intelligence on this every day. We are working more closely than ever with our European partners.
Public safety is the highest priority, and a major part of this is to be as open and transparent with Australians as possible about both the threat and what everyone can do to help. In September last year, the alert level was raised to high, and it has remained there ever since. We have subsequently seen terrorist attacks against police officers in Melbourne, the Sydney siege, and the murder of a police worker in Parramatta by a radicalised young man.
The tempo of our domestic counter-terrorism efforts has increased and our capabilities have been tested. Since September 2014, 26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations around Australia. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. Counter-terrorism units at our airports are also stopping people leaving for, and returning from, the conflict zone.
The fact that there has to date been no mass casualty attack owes much to the vigilance of our security agencies. ASIO and the Federal Police have advised me that there is no evidence that the recent attacks, including Paris, will materially affect the threat level in Australia, but we are constantly on the watch for any evolving or emerging threats.
The Council of Australian Governments agreed in July to develop a new threat advisory system to make it clearer to the public what our security experts believe to be the current threat from terrorism. The new framework, recommended by ASIO, has been subject to extensive consultation and review. I can inform the House that the National Threat Assessment Centre (or NTAC) that sits within ASIO will this week transition to the new National Terrorism Threat Advisory System. The new system will provide the public with more information on the nature of the threat we are facing. The adoption of a five-tiered system will also provide ASIO with greater flexibility in determining threat levels, reflecting the need to adapt to an evolving security environment.
Rapid developments in communications technology present both opportunities and challenges for our agencies; modern messaging and voice applications are generally encrypted in transit. Human intelligence, relationships with communities, are more important than ever. I have therefore asked that ASIO and other relevant agencies work with our international intelligence partners to address the challenge of monitoring terrorist groups in this new environment.
I will be meeting with my state and territory colleagues next month. Cooperation between all tiers of government and state and federal agencies is vital in the counter-terrorism effort. At COAG on 11 December, I will continue our discussions with premiers on how best to counter violent extremism. I will raise with them initiatives under consideration to address the problem of radicalisation in prisons. I have also asked that our law enforcement agencies test their responses to a mass casualty attack. Such an attack leaves little, if any, room for negotiation. This work is in addition to the extensive reform of our national security laws which has already seen the introduction of five tranches of new legislation. These laws ensure that our agencies have all the tools required in the effort to keep us safe.
Within Australia, our counter-terrorism strategy calls for partnership between all levels of government, community and the private sector. It emphasises the need to limit the spread and influence of violent extremist ideas. The root cause of the current threat we face is a perverted strain of Islamist extremist ideology. Not all extremism ends in violence but all politically motivated violence begins with extremist ideology. Any war with ISIL is not just one in a military sense, but is also a war of ideas. Through their extensive use of social media, they seek the maximum propaganda advantage from any territorial gains as cover for their fundamental military weakness and the barbaric nature of their mindset.
The government's investment in countering violent extremism programs has tripled over the past four years to more than $40 million. The government's approach has four tiers:
Importantly, governments cannot win this battle alone. Community leaders and groups have great responsibility both in denouncing violent extremism and teaching unity in diversity and mutual respect instead of hatred. The condemnation of ISIL and the promotion of authentic, modern and tolerant Islam by the leaders of big majority Muslim nations—including Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia—has been especially important. To this end, I thank all those Muslim groups and leaders who have made statements denouncing the Paris attacks. A strong and trusting relationship between the government and communities is crucial to ensuring the right messages reach the hearts and minds of those who might be vulnerable to the propaganda of terror groups. Part of the message is promoting the truth that Australia not only does its part in the military coalition to defeat ISIL but in the humanitarian cause as well.
Australia has committed to accepting over four years an additional 12,000 people who have fled the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Australia has also provided around $230 million in humanitarian assistance since 2011 to support Syrians and Iraqis affected by the conflict. This is a significant humanitarian initiative by Australians. We have one of the strongest records of any nation for resettling people facing persecution in their homelands. Since the end of World War II, Australia has resettled more than 825,000 refugees and others in humanitarian need. The focus of the 12,000 intake of Syrian and Iraqi refugees is on persecuted minorities and those assessed as being most vulnerable—women, children and families with the least prospect of returning to their homes. All applications are rigorously assessed on an individual basis—in line with Australia's existing refugee and humanitarian policies. Our national security interest is always the first and the abiding priority. Strict security, health and character checks will not be compromised.
In Iraq and Syria, ISIL must be defeated militarily—enabled by a durable political settlement in both countries that will reduce the capacity of the extremists to recruit and mobilise. The threat of ISIL-inspired terrorism must be addressed through domestic, regional and global counter-terrorism efforts; as an ideological threat, it needs to be, and will be, confronted globally. There are no quick fixes. We will redouble our efforts in support of domestic and regional counter-terrorism efforts. Across the region, our engagement will intensify, pursuing collective counter-terrorism objectives by better prioritising and coordinating with regional partners.
We will defeat these terrorists. And the strongest weapons we bring to this battle are ourselves, our values and our way of life. Our unity mocks their attempts to divide us. Our freedom under law mocks their cruel tyranny. Our mutual respect mocks their bitter intolerance. And the strength of our free people will see off these thugs and tyrants as it has seen off so many of their kind before.
I present a copy of the ministerial statement.
I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House. On behalf of the opposition, I join him in offering our condolences to all who have lost someone they love as a result of terrorism in these dark and difficult days. I think the scenes that we have seen from overseas have at some level reminded us all that the great advantage of being an Australian is that we enjoy our freedom without most of us having had to fight for it. I, of course, acknowledge the remarkable exception, which is the service of our people in the Australian Defence Force. But, in the recent times, we have been reminded that, whilst we may be an island, we are not immune to the fanaticism and the psychopathic crime that we have seen witness.
Terrorism is an affront to all humanity wherever it occurs and whoever it affects. It is a crime engineered expressly to strike at the innocent, to spread fear, to engender hatred. At times when terror threatens our way of life, it is right that Australians expect cooperation from their national leaders. That is why Labor has consistently sought bipartisanship on national security. We worked with Mr Abbott, and we will do so again with Mr Turnbull. We know the security of our nation runs deeper than partisan differences, because no individual and no party has a monopoly on patriotism. We all love our country. We all care for the safety of our citizens. All Australians should enjoy the rights and liberties of our safe, peaceful democracy equally—and we all have an equal responsibility to uphold them, to defend them and to preserve the security of our nation.
I am proud of the approach that every single member of the caucus has taken to questions of national security while I have been leader. Labor have not shied away from difficult argument and we have not shirked hard decisions. Labor have engaged with the issues deeply and thoughtfully and, in doing so, we have supported and enhanced four rounds of national security legislation, including the citizenship legislation which is currently before the parliament, and we will work with the government to progress the fifth round of legislation, which was introduced into the Senate in the last sittings.
We have made over 100 substantive amendments to the national security bills put forward by this government, including 26 substantive amendments to the citizenship bill before the parliament. Many of these amendments have established new measures to strengthen accountability and oversight of newly created powers, and include measures such as the creation of a public interest advocate to help protect the sources of journalists and freedom of the press, as well as mandated reviews of many powers in order to ensure that these powers are conferred for no longer than is necessary. Our focus is about the best interests and safety of Australians. Our focus is always on striking the right balance between national security considerations and the fundamental democratic rights and freedoms all Australians cherish: mindful always that, in seeking to defend ourselves from the terrorist threat, we do not undermine the very foundations of our strength that the terrorists would wish to destroy and that we seek to protect; knowing that alongside law enforcement and security powers, every cent invested in ensuring our national cohesion has a definite practical outcome for our security, because words and ideas, hearts and minds are at the core of winning the struggle against terrorism. Mr Chip Le Grand put it well in The Australian this morning when he told the story of four Iraqi girls living in Broadmeadows, in Victoria, who convinced their parents to allow them to join the rest of their classmates in a sleepover at school. He wrote:
It seems the smallest of things. Yet on such things the defence of Australian suburbs partially rests: winning the trust of parents newly arrived from the Middle East; overcoming cultural aversions to 11-year-old boys and girls bunking out together; allowing four girls be a part of things rather than made to feel apart.
Right now, at home and abroad, we face a common challenge in a different guise—the gruesome slaughter in Iraq and Syria, the suicide bombings in Bamako and Beirut, the bringing down of innocent travellers from the skies over Egypt, the random shedding of blood on the cobblestones and concert halls of Paris. Here in our streets and suburbs we grapple with violence fuelled by violent extremism. While our fundamental goal is the same—the utter defeat of those who would wish us harm—our means and methods will differ according to the situation we face. In the operations in Iraq, the ADF is there to protect civilians and to build the capacity of Iraq's security forces. I had the privilege of meeting with the men and women serving in the region. Their bravery and professionalism is a credit to them and I think the source of a pride for all Australians. Indeed, I wish all Australians could just have a glimpse of the sheer professionalism of the people who serve in our defence forces. I think it would make every Australian feel a little more prouder even.
Since day one of Australia's involvement in this conflict, Labor has consistently said that success in Iraq depends most upon the government and the people of Iraq themselves. The conflict in Iraq is for Iraq to win. Australia's role in the region is to build capacity, not dependency. We do not want to perpetuate another cycle as occurred following the invasion of 2003: a large-scale troop movement, civil unrest and ongoing violence, escalation, withdrawal and eventual return. We can and we must provide Iraqi armed forces with the skills and training to repel and overcome Daesh, to focus on building their own capacity to train themselves and protect themselves. But this will have to be matched by efforts of the Iraqi government to develop a coherent strategy that includes all sections of the Iraqi population in this endeavour. Without an inclusive strategy, the cycle of conflicts spurred on by radical groups exploiting historical and deep-seated sectarian and ethnic tensions will continue to undermine Iraq's long-term survival. As I have said previously, we cannot hope to drain the swamp of terrorism by military means alone or by imposing leadership from the outside, or, to put it more bluntly in the vernacular: we will not bomb our way to victory. The leadership will have to come from within Iraq and the region, and that challenge must be answered by Iraqis. Iraq is, of course, only one theatre in a regional and global struggle.
Investigators from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have labelled Syria the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. Civil war has claimed around 250,000 lives and driven millions more from their homes—at least four million Syrian refugees externally and six million are displaced internally. And the Syrian regime continues to inflict war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own citizens. Talk of pragmatism in the search for peace is fine but it cannot result in Assad remaining permanently in power. His ongoing presence would only serve as a spur to armed resistance and provide a rallying call for extremists. A leader who uses chemical weapons against his civilians, who orders massacres of the innocent with impunity, who commands the imprisonment and torture of children for painting graffiti on the wall and who thinks nothing of the mass slaughter of his own people belongs in a jail cell, not in charge.
We have called for and continue to call for a coherent strategy for Syria. It must be based on a sustainable political solution and a peace plan that has a chance of gaining traction. This will need to be underpinned by a reconstruction and humanitarian effort that demonstrates the dividends of peace.
Like Mr Turnbull, Labor does not support unilaterally sending ground combat units into Syria. The history of success of Western-led armies in this region is poor, to say the least. We understand the very real risk of a protracted ground war involving Australian personnel in danger, with limited potential for it to contribute to the long-term solution we should be seeking. And in the short term, an escalated presence of Western troops will only feed the propaganda of Daesh.
The conflict in the Middle East has profound consequences in our region too. Australia has suffered 112 terrorism related deaths since 2000, most of them of course, sadly, in Bali at the hands of Jemaah Islamiyah. Now Sidney Jones, a leading foreign policy thinker in Jakarta writes, most disturbingly:
The conflict in Syria has captured the imagination of Indonesian extremists in a way no foreign war has before.
And in the medium-term we face the risk of people returning from Syria, not just to Australia but to the region, poisoned by fanaticism, with ill-intent in their hearts and skill in conflict.
Australia has to show leadership here, particularly through multilateral institutions, as a key architect of OPEC and a founding member of both the East Asia Summit and the first ASEAN dialogue partner. ASEAN has made a remarkable contribution to establishing stable relations amongst the countries of South-East Asia. We need to support and maintain that focus; that cooperation is so important in tackling the challenges on doorsteps.
But as much as we can deal with our neighbours and our partners in the region we can never negotiate with Daesh, because there is nothing rational about their world view. There is nothing we can say to them and nothing they can offer us. They are not just weak; they are deluded. They are the enemy of Islam and an enemy of people everywhere. Engaged in crimes against people of all faiths and traditions, they deal only in violence, fear and murder, and they must be met with uncompromising, resolute force.
Here in Australia we put our trust in the expertise, professionalism and skill of our security agencies and our emergency services personnel. As parliamentarians we should continue to be guided by the best advice of our agencies and experts with regard to the new terrorism threat advisory system. We must give agencies and communities all the support we can to enhance their capability and to counter the radicalisation of vulnerable youth. This should include removing all impediments to the passage of information amongst agencies, effecting their seamless cooperation and ensuring that we match the right capabilities to a given situation in the timeliest manner possible.
And we count on standing together with a clear message to all who would seek to do us harm. There is never any excuse for violence aimed at the innocent. People who would seek to kill their fellow citizens in the name of Islam are not martyrs: they are murderers. And any individual whose actions cross the sharp boundary between right and wrong must feel the full force of the law, particularly those who would seek to prey upon vulnerable, isolated young people and make them instruments of hate.
We agree with the government: we must stand strong in the defence of our people's safety, resilient in our defence of Australia as a diverse, generous and inclusive multicultural society. The handful of Australians lured to the war zone of Iraq and Syria and the tiny, twisted minority tempted to replicate acts of terror here at home do not reflect the values of faith, or of Islam in particular. Nor, in my experience, do they represent in any fashion at all our nation's diverse and generous Muslim community. I have heard many Muslim leaders say that Islam is a religion of peace. I know they mean it and I thank them for that leadership. We should always strive to work with the Muslim community through cooperation, not isolation.
The respected former Director-General of ASIO, David Irvine, expressed it most powerfully when he said:
… the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself.
This must inform a balanced approach to our counterterrorism community engagement, drawing on new means and new methods, and adapting to new challenges.
In the 2014 review of US Department of Defense strategies and priorities, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, wrote:
My greatest concern is that we will not innovate quickly enough or deeply enough to be prepared for the future for the world we will face two decades from now.
We should heed those words.
The security threats facing Australia are no longer limited to forces coming to our continent by sea or mounting a long-range air attack. We live in an era where disruptive technologies present genuine threats to our national security. We are fortunate in Australia to have a regime of strong gun controls, introduced by former Prime Minister Howard and supported by Labor, that make it difficult for criminals to readily access the kinds of high-powered weapons that inflicted such dreadful loss of life in Paris. But individuals and loosely-arranged organisations are adapting, harnessing emerging and relatively inexpensive technologies in their attempt to do us harm. More than ever, our security agencies need to be competitive and responsive to deal with new and emerging threats.
We must engage proactively in driving an effective international approach to cripple the financial operations of terrorist organisations and their supporters. The international coordination of intelligence operations and the exchange of information requires greater urgency and energy; countering the rapid adoption of the emerging low-cost technologies, such as drones and cyberattacks, will be increasingly important.
This needs to be a global, multilateral process. Our treaties, conventions and export controls need to reflect that we live in a time when bomb-making instructions can be easily found on the internet and 3D printing is common. As the distinguished and, as of today, outgoing head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Peter Varghese, has said, global agreements must 'be updated and built upon so that they remain relevant as the landscape shifts'.
But countermeasures are not always available off the shelf. We are in a constant battle of lessons learned, adaptation and anticipation, which require imagination and initiative. That is why it is essential for Australia to nurture its national defence research and development effort. If we are not in the business of creating new ideas and quickly turning new ideas into new technology, the ADF will become slower to respond and less effective over time. Now is not the time to be making cuts to important organisations such as the Defence Science and Technology Group.
Our parliament should always be a place where we can debate the important issues in a rational and considered way. This parliament should be a forum not for fear mongering or jingoism but for the considered examination of the best way to keep our nation safe.
I understand Australians are anxious and concerned about their security. We open the papers, go online or turn on the TV and there seem to be more stories than ever about threats to our way of life and about random, senseless acts of violence afflicting the innocent. It is a challenging time for our country and, indeed, the world. I say to our fellow Australians: take heart and be of good courage. Take comfort from the knowledge that our security agencies, our police and our Defence Force are amongst the very best and bravest in the world. Australians should take comfort from this parliamentary speech by the Prime Minister and reply by the opposition today. I can assure those who are listening that, despite our very fierce debates about many aspects of Australia, we go together into the future with a united strength in terms of national security.
There can be no 100 per cent guarantee against terrorism occurring here. We already know this. There can be even less of a guarantee of the safety of Australians overseas, no matter how much we wish to protect our family, friends and children when they travel. There is a possibility that some few people with some infamous training and malice in their hearts would seek to come causing harm. But Australians should be reassured that our defence forces, security forces and, indeed, our parliament and leaders across various faith communities are committed to securing our future together. Australians should know that the very qualities that we love about our country—the rule of law, respect and inclusion—remain our most powerful and enduring defence against those who would seek to attack and undermine our way of life. In this parliament it has been said about our national security previously that:
Whatever has been done; whatever must be done; and all that we can hope to do in the future …
That will be the first responsibility of all of us as elected representatives. I thank the House.
This is quite timely in light of the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister and the response by the opposition leader on national security. We are talking about enemies outside of our borders who wish to do us as a nation and as a people harm. In rising to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 I want to talk about, sadly, those within our borders who also seek to do us harm. The purpose of this bill is to contain those people. It is to officially strip Australian citizenship from those people who, by their actions, have forfeited their right to be citizens of this great nation.
This amendment was announced in the national security statement by the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, in February of this year. But now the time has come to debate this bill and we must look at the times we are living in. The atrocities committed in Paris 11 days ago have rocked the world. But they are not isolated. There are terrorist threats and actions being committed in countries right around the world. We here in Australia are not immune.
Like many other countries, Australia has a heightened terror alert level. We have witnessed on our shores an attack on police officers at Endeavour Hills police station last year, the siege at Sydney's Martin Place which sadly resulted in the deaths of two Australians. And we witnessed the murder of civilian Curtis Cheng, who worked at the Parramatta police station. These deaths were all at the hands of terrorists.
This is not to mention acts that were prevented by the tremendous work of Australia's police forces and security services. I refer to the 'Sydney five', who attempted to commit acts of terrorism in the city of Sydney in 2005, and the Benbrika group who planned the bombing of several sporting events in 2005 and 2006 as well as plotted to assassinate former Prime Minister John Howard. There was also a plot to storm Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney in 2009.
According to The Australian newspaper yesterday:
Twelve men and boys living within the Australian community are capable of committing an act of terror such as killing a random member of the public, police say.
Yesterday's article says:
They are part of a larger group of 19 men and boys, seven of whom are in prison.
More than 30 people have been brought before the courts on terror-related charges since Operation Appleby launched in September last year—Australia's largest counter-terrorism raids to date.
Most of those people have been under investigation for more than a year.
That article goes on to say:
Counter-terrorism consultant Shandon Harris-Hogan told Four Corners the extreme ideology being embraced by the men can be connected back to historic terrorist plots in Australia, like Operation Pendennis.
"Overwhelmingly individuals have a familial or friendship connection," he said.
"There is an interconnected network of individuals who transcend operational cells, and within that group there is clear examples of ideology being passed on from father to son, mother to daughter and between spouses, cousins and siblings."
When an estimated 150 Australians have been, or are currently, overseas fighting with extremists in Iraq and Syria, members of the Islamic State, we have a problem. We have a problem right around the world and here in Australia—a problem made horribly graphic with the photograph of the seven-year-old son of Islamic State fighter Khaled Sharrouf holding a severed head aloft. Khaled Sharrouf, by his own actions, rejected Australian citizenship. In his case this legislation would be a mere formality. When Australians are fighting against their own country and the values that it stands for, they have signed their own ticket out of this country. This legislation, as far as I see it, is just stamping that ticket to make it official.
It is important to note that, when applying for a provisional, permanent, or sometimes even a temporary visa, an applicant must sign a statement that they have read and understand the following things about Australian values:
These are the rules of entry into our country. They are not just the rules of the game. They are the game. Like any other club, when you break the rules, you forfeit your membership. If you decide that you no longer want to adhere to the rules, then you have your membership revoked, or you hand it in.
When the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, delivered his national security statement back in February, he said:
It has long been the case that people who fight against Australia forfeit their citizenship.
Australians who take up arms with terrorist groups ... have sided against their country and should be treated accordingly.
He also considered—wisely, I believe—taking the issue a step further. As part of a war on domestic jihad and radical Islam at home, we are going to have to get tougher and make it apply to those without dual citizenship. We should be taking action against anyone who seeks to join foreign fighters and has the capacity to be a citizen of another country. If, for instance, a second-generation Australian can get citizenship of their parents' homeland and they seek to join a foreign fighting force such as Islamic State and take up arms against our country, our values or our allies, they should have their Australian citizenship revoked, because they have another place to go to.
But a further problem remains: what do you do with people who do not have a second country option? My view is still to strip them of citizenship. They should forfeit all rights of citizenship—an idea, again, which was floated by the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, when he suggested suspending some of the privileges of citizenship. We cannot make those people stateless, because that breaches international law, but we can downgrade their citizenship to a form of, perhaps, permanent residency, or something even less than that, where they would hold fewer rights than a citizen—for instance, we could say that they would not have the right to vote; their ability to leave or return to Australia would be restricted, maybe with the removal of their passport; their access to consular services would be revoked and their access to welfare payments would be revoked or reduced.
The member for Warringah said that no-one should live in Australia 'while denying our values and rejecting the very idea of a free and open society'. In his speech at the Australian Federal Police headquarters, he said: 'We cannot allow bad people to use our good nature against us.' There is a lot of wisdom in that. These measures—both the ones contained in this bill and the further measures outlined above—should not supplant the punishment of foreign fighters, those who are aiding and abetting the enemy, or those planning to commit acts of terrorism against Australians. It should be an add-on. They should still be punished to the full extent of the law and put in jail.
The whole idea of stripping citizenship is a key plank in a strategy outlined by the Center for Security Policy, an organisation based in the United States. I have been reading their publication, The secure freedom strategy: a plan for victory over the global jihad movement, at length. It makes very interesting reading. They outline a plan for the United States:
The US must revoke the citizenship of naturalised Americans who, in seeking to insinuate shariah-compliant norms into civil society have violated their oath of naturalization and allegiance—
and, therefore, should be deported. I have to say that there is also wisdom in that. There is wisdom in that because, when you are fundamentally arguing for something such as sharia law, which is the antithesis of Australian society and the values that you signed up to when you took out that visa or declared you were going to be an Australian citizen, you are writing your ticket out of this country yourself.
There are other measures suggested by the Center for Security Policy that are worthy of consideration when the stakes are so high, and I will talk about them in a second. But, firstly, I want to congratulate the contribution of Queensland LNP MP Christian Rowan, who echoed my call from some time ago to take a serious look at the reinstatement of capital punishment for those who commit terrorist acts on Australian shores that result in the death of Australian citizens. It is something that seriously needs to be considered.
Going back to the Centre for Security Policy and their particular approach about those who advocate for sharia law in Australia, I have a question that we need to consider in the context of this bill: what is the difference between the views of a member of a group like, say, Hizb ut-Tahrir and someone who goes off to fight for Islamic State? Both hold the same view of Australian society, and my view is that both of them should be expelled from Australian society. If you believe we are in the midst of a war—and we have probably been in it for about 15 years now—against radical Islam, then you must take the necessary steps to ensure that radical Islam, the ideology of Islamism and domestic jihad are controlled and contained at home. You do not want to have to fight the enemy at home as well. We do have people in Australia who do not believe that we are at war, and I have to say that some of them are in this place. It is a bit like saying that you are not in a fight while you are getting punched in the face by someone. Islamic State have said they are at war with us. The radical Islamists have said that they are at war with us. They have declared it a war. We are at war. If another country declared war on us, we would accept without question that we were at war.
Australians, like all other freedom-loving people, love freedom, liberty and democracy, but those radical Islamists consider us we are Dar al-Harb, the house of war, because we are in a country where sharia is not enforced. The world, according to their world view, is divided into two houses: Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam, and Dar al-Harb, the house of war. The parts of the world that are not yet subjugated to sharia are called the house of war, where it is deemed that there is a perpetual state of jihad, or holy war, going on until it is subjugated and comes under sharia rule. There is no question that we are at war with radical Islam. Our enemies have declared it so. They have told us it in black and white.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate we take whatever steps are necessary to protect Australians, to protect our citizens. That is the first duty and the primary duty of national government—to protect your nation, to defend your nation and to ensure that its citizens are secure. I do believe that this bill and the measures outlined within it are a key part of that—to expel individuals from this nation who have dual citizenship and can somewhere else, and who seek to fight against here at home and seek to kill people in this country, motivated by a desire to commit a terrorist atrocity, or who go overseas and fight for extremist foreign forces, such as Islamic state, which are against the very values which this nation stands for. I commend this bill. I am glad that it has support of both sides of the House. But I think that this bill is only the beginning of what needs to be done. It is certainly not the end. We are in a long war here with radical Islam, and it is only through measures that are tough and measures that strike at the heart of the enemy that we will be able to win this war.
I rise today to publicly support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The amendments being made to this bill are necessary adjustments, particularly in light of recent events. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Dawson on issues of national security. I know that he is passionate and diligent and very committed to seeing the security and safety of all Australians, as we should. His speech was very good to hear. It is a pleasure to follow him and other colleagues who have supported this bill.
On Friday, 13 November, France was the victim of a malicious, extreme and what I would call cowardly terrorist attack, which stole the lives of at least 130 people and injured more than 350 others. I would like to add to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all my colleagues in personally extending my condolences to the people of Paris and the families and friends of those killed. No country should have to go through what France is going through. Australia stands solemnly with you in this time of grieving, and we remain united in our battle against terrorism.
The highly organised attacks saw gunmen and suicide bombers target the Parisian way of life—bars, restaurants and a sports stadium. The attacks stole innocent lives and imposed immense fear and suffering not only in Paris but around the world. The attacks were against freedom, as we all understand it to be, and what that freedom means for each of us as individuals. Like France, we too, will not stand for terrorism. We refuse to let terror win. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 presents imperative amendments to further secure the safety of Australia and its citizens, by taking a strong stance on terrorism and terrorist organisations.
I would like to provide some context for the House. In September of last year, our national terrorism public alert level was raised to the status of high. Since then, there have been 26 people charged, resulting from 10 counter-terrorism operations and there are currently more than 400 high-priority counter-terrorism ongoing investigations being managed by our security agencies. We just heard the member for Dawson talk about the fact that we are at war. An article that was written in the paper on the weekend, also talked about the fact that we are at war and that France's President has also declared that we are at war. Over 1,000 people have died at the hands of terrorists this year around the world. So, as the member for Dawson said, we are definitely at war.
To provide some perspective and understanding of how serious this threat is, those 400 investigations work out to an average of 2.6 high priority counter-terrorism cases across each Australian electorate. This figure has doubled from what it was only one year ago. In terms of individual involvement, there are currently 110 Australians known to our security agencies to be either fighting with or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria or Iraq. The number of Australians joining extremist groups is rising. The number of supporters of extremism and potential terrorists is rising.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I rise yet again to speak in opposition to this government's unfair plan to increase the GST. As I keep saying in this House and also in my electorate, National Party choices hurt. In regional and rural areas, one of the National Party's cruellest and most unfair choices is their plan to increase the GST to 15 per cent. I have made it very clear to my constituents in Richmond that I will keep fighting very hard against the Prime Minister and the National Party's very unfair plan to increase the GST, because under their plan everybody will pay more.
An increase in the GST will raise the price of everything, and the fact is families and pensioners are already struggling so much with the cost of living. They are already struggling to get by and an increase in the GST means all their bills will go up—their electricity bills, their rent and their grocery bills, including fresh food. It will cost more every time they go to the supermarket. It will cost more every time they go to the doctor and every time they go to the hospital. It will cost more every time their kids need new schoolbooks or new uniforms.
That is why Labor will not support this government's plan to raise the GST: because it will push up the price of everything and hurt those very people who can least afford it. For this reason, we will continue to fight hard against the government's unfair plan to increase it. As I said, in regional and rural areas, people know National Party choices hurt—especially their plan to increase the GST to 15 per cent.
As we move to this time of the year, our minds begin to think about the Christmas season. My thoughts move to the shepherds outside in the cool night air and the shift workers, the lower paid and the lower status, who were the first to hear from the angels of the birth of Christ. It is a reminder to all of us that everyone is of value, that we should challenge our own filter as to the status and importance of others.
The message of peace on earth and good will to all men seems contrary to the recent terrorism events and the conflicts around the world, and it appears that hope and history have not rhymed. Where is the peace on earth? Peace on earth would save the federal budget $26 billion a year. Peace on earth would allow a united humanity to build people up instead of tearing others down. Even the very sight of the shepherds' fields is still disputed territory.
But I think the real peace on earth is the peace in the hearts of men and women that is offered through the Christmas story—a story of hope and redemption through the birth and life of a new child. Every time we come to Christmas, we should remember the Christmas story. So I ask people to enjoy some time with loved ones. Eat some good, Australian grown, healthy food. Please take the time to pause and remember the hope that comes from the Christmas story. Merry Christmas, Australia.
I rise today to speak about this government, this out-of-touch Prime Minister, tax and families. This Prime Minister has in front of this chamber changes to the family tax benefit that will impact on 21,000 families in my electorate. That is a third of my electorate who are set to lose up to $4,700 a year. There are only 3,000 families in the member for Wentworth's own electorate that would have this fate put upon them. On top of this, he wants to increase the GST to 15 per cent. That is a 50 per cent increase. He also wants to broaden the base of what already attracts the GST to schools, fresh food and health. This is a 15 per cent increase for families. NATSEM says that that would cost $5,000 a year for a typical family.
So in my electorate we are looking at a third of our families who are now down $9,700. Everything will cost more under this plan. The disposable income of families in my electorate will actually decrease by nearly $10,000. Think about the cumulative impacts of that. It all spells bad news for Lalor, bad news for small business and bad news for the building industry. If the building industry slows down in my electorate, the cycle continues. This government and this Prime Minister need to take a look around Australia and the people they plan to hurt.
What power there is when a community all pull together! I love attending turning of the sod events because it indicates that a long awaited project is about to come to fruition, and none more so than the turning of the sod last week at the Karmai Community Children's Centre in Korumburra. Jan Martin, Director of Community Services, and Councillor Bob Newton, Mayor of South Gippsland Shire Council, were so excited that at long last this tight-knit community was going to have a state-of-the-art integrated children's centre to cope with the ever-growing population.
The state and federal governments contributed $1.6 million each and the local government $2 million, but no contribution was more important and worked harder for than the $100,000 that was raised by the local children's centre committee. Two people who worked so tirelessly for this outcome were President Bronwyn Beach and Vice-President Bec Marriott. Bec Marriott spoke passionately about the consultation, cooperation and collaboration that had been such an important part of, and pivotal in, the success of this application.
To all of those who supported the success of this project in any way, I congratulate you and look forward to the day when the first children pass through the doors. The benefits that this facility will bring to this community are immeasurable. To the people of Korumburra and district, I give my sincere congratulations, and a special 'well done' to the committee. I asked that day, 'How much do we love our children?' Well, we love them this much.
In the first two years, this Abbott-Turnbull government has wreaked devastation upon the household budgets of people within my electorate. There have been over $80 billion worth of cuts to hospitals, health services, schools and education; the devastation of the proposed GP tax and its younger brother, the freeze in Medicare rebates; $100,000 fees for universities; and family tax benefit cuts which are going to cut over $4,000 from the household budgets of families within my electorate. And now they are proposing to put in place a new cost burden, which will increase the cost of everything from water to gas, electricity, petrol, school fees and even medicines. Every time you stand at the checkout at the supermarket, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister will be there with their hand out saying, 'We'll have five per cent more for everything.'
An average household already pays over $5,800 in GST. When it goes up to 15 per cent, households will be paying an additional $3,000 to this Treasurer and this Prime Minister, because they cannot get their numbers or their facts straight. Let us be very, very clear: at the next election there will be 150 people wearing Labor Party tickets campaigning to stop this terrible GST, and there will be 150 Liberal and coalition members— (Time expired)
I would like to acknowledge a bloke from my electorate by the name of Brendon Pingel, a name that none of you will know, but hopefully over the next couple of days his name will be a name that most Australians know. Brendon is one of Australia's fastest up-and-coming car racers. After inheriting a lifetime love of cars from his father, who raced Formula 2 nationally, he has committed his life to going as fast as he can.
After cutting his teeth on the closed circuit motor-racing runs around Queensland, he moved into the big league—the lightning-fast Aussie Racing Cars league, which sees up to 50 cars on a track at a time. He took out rookie of the year in 2011. He was 25. In his first season in the Aussie Racing Cars league, he finished in a top 10 position out of 70 drivers, the best for a driver in their rookie season in the 11-year history of the class. Since then he has gone from strength to strength, moving up the Aussie Racing Cars leadership board in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
This year, 2015, is shaping up to be his best year. A career highlight came for Brendon when he took out the Aussie Racing Cars round at Bathurst. He became the first Queenslander in the history of the series to take out an overall victory at the gruelling Mount Panorama circuit at Bathurst. He also broke the lap speed record. This triumph extended his championship lead, after having already won four out of the five double-points final races so far this year.
Brendon drives a car named the 'Spirit of the Lockyer'. I wish him the very best in the finals coming up this weekend.
Today I would like to talk about Wildlife Victoria. It is a not-for-profit charity with 1,500 volunteers who passionately care about wildlife. Volunteers provide a seven-day-a-week emergency response service, along with advice and rescue. In many cases the animals are saved from certain death by this intensive care.
My lovely electorate of Indi has a dedicated group of local volunteers and vets who give their time and resources to care for animals. In 2014-15 lndi recorded 507 animal rescues, 28 per cent of which were for animals hit by a vehicle. The main species rescued were eastern grey kangaroos, bare-nosed wombats, magpies, ducks and sulphur-crested cockatoos.
Today I would particularly like to acknowledge the vets and thank them for all their work: Alexandra Veterinary Clinic, Alpine Animal Doctors, Benalla Veterinary Clinic, Glenrowan Veterinary Clinic, Melrose Animal Hospital in Wodonga, Ovens and Kiewa Veterinary Hospital, Rutherglen Veterinary Clinic, Tallangatta Veterinary Clinic, Wangaratta Veterinary Clinic, Wodonga Veterinary Clinic and the Family Vet Centre. We know this work would not be possible without your help. To all the volunteers who look after so many animals, who care for them, restore them and bring them back to life, thank you for all your work.
Some of the most important elements for a region's economic growth and for jobs are connections with the wider world. In North Queensland, greater opportunities are starting to take flight, with planning for international airports at both Mackay and the Whitsundays well advanced.
The Whitsundays is a world-renowned destination and will attract even more tourism dollars into the region with direct international flights—an opportunity recognised by the Whitsunday Regional Council—along with the opportunity for agricultural exports to the region. The council, which owns the airport, is in negotiations to deliver an international charter program to the Whitsunday Coast Airport next year.
The Mackay Airport is also buckling up for international flights and increased domestic capacity. This is an important time for the Mackay Airport as it works to position itself as a hub for long-distance commutes to the mines that are opening up in the Galilee Basin. The addition of international flights will open up more tourism opportunities and provide new freight links to boost local industry and jobs at a time when it is badly needed.
Townsville received a gift from this government, with immigration, border protection and quarantine services at their airport, which facilitated flights to Bali. I have been in discussions with the immigration minister about extending a similar gift to both the Mackay and Whitsunday regional airports. I will be working with the Whitsunday Regional Council and with the Mackay Airport to ensure the proposals clear any regulatory hurdles.
Over the last month I have been contacted by many Canberrans who are scared. They are scared that their cost of living will rise under an increased GST. They are scared they will not be able to afford their rent. They are scared that they will not be able to afford their medical bills. They are scared they will not be able to afford to buy their kids healthy, nutritious food. Families and pensioners are already struggling with the cost of living, and now they are scared that, if the GST is increased, they will not be able to make ends meet. There are Canberrans like Dean and Kay, who contacted me recently, concerned about the government's plans to raise the GST. They wrote:
Neither my wife nor I currently pay tax as we are earning below the tax thresh-hold when our senior rebates are applied. Therefore an increase in GST would simply increase our cost of living.
The Government has found yet another way to reduce our income without having the inconvenience of getting any parliamentary approval.
This is just one of the reasons why Labor will not support the government's plan to raise the GST. It hurts the very families who can least afford it—families who Labor will protect by opposing this terrible plan.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge VERTO, who took out the Large Training Provider of the Year award last week at the 2015 Australian Training Awards. VERTO is a community owned, not-for-profit registered training organisation, delivering a range of employment and training services to assist individuals, employers and industries in communities across New South Wales. It started as an evening college in Bathurst in the early 1980s and now provides services from 27 locations, training about 3,000 people each year in both accredited and non-accredited vocational training, offering a range of over 50 qualifications.
We are lucky in Calare to have such a dedicated team of people delivering top-quality training, whether it be in Indigenous education, disability support or specialised training, linking the most disadvantaged people in our community with sustainable employment opportunities. At the moment they are running an incredibly valuable program at Glenroi Heights Public School and the Canobolas Rural Technology High School in Orange to help improve a student's transition to high school under the federal government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
I congratulate VERTO Chief Executive Ron Maxwell and the team on taking out the award. You are very worthy recipients.
The people of Newcastle have every right to wonder just what it is that this government has against families. In my electorate of Newcastle the impact of the cuts to family payments are already causing great concern. There are 47,000 families in the region that I represent who would be worse off as a result of the cuts to the family tax benefit. But here is another assault on the standards of living for families of Newcastle. Here we have the government proposing—it is another little thought bubble being floated—a GST hike of 15 per cent. Although members opposite are quick to point out that they refuse to believe that it is real, this is exactly what happened when we pointed to the GP tax when it was forthcoming. I was shouted at from across the chamber—they were saying, 'Rubbish, rubbish, you're just scaremongering.'
The comments are the same now, and families in Newcastle are wake up to it. They know full well what a GST hike means for everyday living: it is a cost on absolutely everything in their lives. That is why Labor will not support the Turnbull Liberal government's plan to raise the GST. It will push up prices on everything, and it will hurt the very families who can least afford it. We will never allow that to happen.
Last month I hosted the inaugural Banks Junior Short Film Contest. I invited young filmmakers from the Banks electorate to make short films around the theme of 'why we love our local area'. The contest produced some excellent films from local kids; and none better than that of Lucia Bickerton, of St Joseph's at Oatley, who was the winner of the individual division with her documentary, titled Banks, the place to live. The winner of the group division was Padstow Heights Public School, which produced a time-travelling theme in which the protagonists conclude that Padstow Heights today is the place to be.
The event was held at Beverly Hills Cinema, and I would like to thank Costas Meligonis and all his team at Beverly Hills Cinema for donating the use of the cinema for the event. I would also like to thank the Shopfront Theatre at Carlton for donating a prize, and its CEO Daniel Potter assisted in the judging of the contest. On the evening we raised over $1500 for St Vincent de Paul for its important local community work. I do thank everyone who was involved and all the kids who produced the great films that we watched on the night.
Increasing the GST is lazy tax policy. I guess we should not expect anything different from this government of lazy policy ideas, which it drops out every now and then, just to test the water. We know that increasing the GST will hit those on the lowest income the hardest. They are the ones who spend most of their income on goods and services—that is just the reality. This government is attacking those on the lowest incomes yet again. Roughly 30 per cent of the households in Bendigo survive on $600 a week, which is barely enough to pay the bills and to pay the rent. Now this government is saying that they have to pay even more. These are pensioners who are living week to week and day to day. They say to me, 'How's the government going to compensate me when I don't pay tax?'
This government needs to come clean and tell the truth. How are you going to compensate people who do not pay tax? One thing that people in Bendigo know too well is, if Malcolm Turnbull is elected in 2016, this will be the last Christmas they can afford. Nothing is safe when it comes to Christmas—15 per cent on the ham, 15 per cent on the Aussie prawns. Even the special luxury of potatoes cooked in duck fat is not going to be safe under this Prime Minister. He is spoiling the opportunity for so many of those on small incomes to get ahead. This Prime Minister does not care and does not understand.
On a much more positive note, I would like to acknowledge Moree resident Ros Laws who, after 10 years, has stepped down as Chair of the Moree Community Drug Action Team. Ros has been involved in community services in Moree for many years as both a paid social worker and volunteer. Ros has not only kept CDAT running in Moree for the past 10 years, but she has also been heavily involved in other community projects, including the establishment of the Moree Men's Shed.
Like Ros, I am very passionate about community drug action teams and the valuable contributions that they make to our communities. Like Ros, I understand that the best results when tackling the scourge of drugs in our community are those that come from within. CDATs are groups of volunteers who work together to minimise and prevent the harmful use of alcohol and other drugs in their neighbourhoods.
There are currently 10 community drug action teams across my electorate of Parkes, and they produce excellent results for their communities, including hosting successful community forums on drug and alcohol abuse. Under the guidance of Ros, the Moree Community Drug Action Team set up a drug and alcohol centre in conjunction with the Salvation Army to provide emergency assistance to those in need of support.
One of my staff members, Linda Woodbridge, in Moree is also heavily involved in CDAT, volunteering her time to ensure that Ros' legacy continues for many more years to come. Thank you, Ros, for your dedication and passion in ensuring the community drug action team's success in the Moree community.
Where are the defenders of the family budget? Where are those people who last term you saw at the greengrocers, you saw them at the butchers, you saw them at the fishmongers, you saw them at refrigerated storage. You even saw a former Prime Minister out there at an ironing board, telling everyone that every single thing would be increased as a result of the carbon price. Whyalla would be wiped out and we would all be forced to eat $100 roast lambs—that the earth as we know it would be completely flattened because of the impost of the carbon price. And then what happened?
They got rid of it.
As the parliamentary secretary points out, they got rid of the carbon price. And what happened? Five hundred dollars was handed back to families. Yet in the same term they are prepared to contemplate a GST increase that would result in a $4,000 cost for families. When you confront them on this, they say, 'Oh, we are not doing it—but we're not ruling it out.' So they are not doing it but they are not ruling it out. I tell you what, we are going to flush you cowards out. We are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to show the Australian public that this bunch of hypocrites that went around last term saying that they were the defenders of family budgets are nothing but the enemy of families. They are committed to increasing pressure on family budgets. (Time expired)
My electorate must surely be the tourism capital of Queensland. We proved it at the Queensland Tourism Awards earlier this month, when businesses from Leichhardt took out nearly one-in-six of the 80-plus awards on the night. Particular congratulations go to the Cairns Central YHA and Cairns Convention Centre. They both won gold awards for the third year in a row and were inducted into the Queensland Tourism Awards Hall of Fame. Gold also went to the teams at the Daintree Discovery Centre at Cow Bay for best tourist attraction; Reef Magic Cruises in Cairns for best major tour and transport operator; Ocean Safari at Cape Tribulation for best tour and transport operator; Seawalker at Green Island for best adventure tourism; Cape Tribulation Beach House resort for best standard accommodation; and Tjapukai Indigenous Experience in Cairns for best Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism. Silver awards were presented to Cairns Amateurs Carnival, which is held every September; Mossman Gorge Centre; Ochre Restaurant and Catering in Cairns; Cairns Coconut Holiday Resort; and Pullman Hotel Reef Casino in Cairns. Meanwhile, the Kuranda Scenic Rail—a historic steam train that winds its way through the rainforest from Cairns to Kuranda—took home a bronze award.
Winning these awards is an outstanding effort and shows that these businesses continue to punch well above their weight in Queensland's $23-billion tourism industry. With the 2015 parliamentary year ending shortly, now is the perfect time for our colleagues to think about coming to Far North Queensland to see for themselves why we are truly a holiday mecca. (Time expired)
I would like to remind the House who put this idea of an increase in the GST on the agenda: Mike Baird, Gladys Berejiklian, Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, Dan Tehan, Scott Morrison. What do all these people have in common? They are members of the Liberal Party. It is you that put this idea of an increase in the GST on the agenda for national discourse again, not us. Our position is very clear—we are opposed to an increase in the GST. Why? Because every time a pensioner pays for their phone bill or their electricity bill or their gas bill they pay more; every time a mum buys new clothes or shoes for her kids she pays more; every time people go to the movies they pay more. The renter pays more every month on their rent. Every time a tradie fills up his ute or buys new steel-capped boots or tools, he pays more. That is what the Liberal Party want average working Australians to do to—they want them to pay more by increasing or broadening the GST.
At the same time, those opposite are not willing to tackle massive tax concessions in superannuation, they are not willing to increase transparency on the largest 1,000 companies in the country to make sure that they pay their fair share of tax, and they are not willing to tackle multinational profit shifting. When it comes to the GST, when it comes to tackling tax problems, this mob are a joke.
Today I rise to congratulate Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and the Brisbane City Council on their latest announcement on the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade. Last week, the council announced Lend Lease would be the preferred contractor for the $650 million infrastructure upgrade. This infrastructure will deliver the best outcomes both for motorists in my electorate of Brisbane and the wider community. Kingsford Smith Drive is one of the most significant routes in the city for Brisbane's economic prosperity and has been operating at capacity for several years, being used by up to 70,000 vehicles a day. With the upgrade not only tackling congestion and delivering travel time savings of up to 30 per cent as well as delivering 3,000 jobs for our local economy, the Kingsford Smith upgrade may be Brisbane's very own road to Damascus.
There is no denying that federally funded projects such as Legacy Way are delivering time savings for motorists right across our suburbs. With the help of the federal government this vital piece of road will also future-proof Brisbane for decades to come. Upgrading Kingsford Smith Drive will have the added benefit of serving as a gateway for the millions of tourists, visitors and residents who enter the city along this route every year. Brisbane is one of Australia's fastest growing cities and the Australian government is committed to investing in key infrastructure to keep the south-east corner going.
On 4 July 2000 then Prime Minister John Howard told the Australian people 'our rate is 10 per cent and it's staying at 10 per cent.' But over recent months there has been a drumbeat of coalition members calling for a 15 per cent GST. It will be okay, they say, because you are going to get compensation. Compensation? Not on your ScoMo, because the Treasurer says that if they raised the GST they would not increase the total tax burden. That means no-one on fixed incomes, no-one on family payments, no-one on pensions gets assistance. Does the Treasurer not understand that when he says he is not going to increase the tax burden that means no compensation? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't—this is the very same Treasurer who, the government having received the Harper review eight months ago, today kicked off its central recommendation of an effects test to another review. That is how they do competition policy under the Abbott-Turnbull government, apparently—commission a review and then have another review about it. The same Treasurer is having a dummy spit over transparency. He is willing to put his own multinational tax plan on the backburner to stand up for secrecy for private companies. Perhaps this Treasurer is the weakest link of the government—but, let's face it, it's not a strong chain.
Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister join with Labor and commit to increasing tobacco excise, which will make for a healthier Australia and raise $48 billion over the decade, or is the Prime Minister intent on increasing the GST, which will increase the price of fresh food for all Australians?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He has returned to his familiar theme of claiming that the government is planning to increase the GST, although on this occasion I am glad he has not specified the percentage by which he intends that we would increase it by—so clearly he is limiting his imagination.
As far as the request to increase tobacco excise, if the opposition want the government to seriously consider this as a proposal—and I am responding respectfully to this proposal—
Mr Champion interjecting—
Member for Wakefield!
I would invite the Labor Party to release their costings. I would invite them to cost how much it will raise. I would invite them to tell us what the impact will be in the reduction in the number of smokers. I would also appreciate if they would advise us whether they would regard this tax as being regressive or progressive, given that is a matter that I notice the member for Fraser was speaking on just as I came in.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The Labor Party have been full of invention today, and they have spent much of the day pretending that the government has already introduced a GST on fresh food and health products. The shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, said: 'The government tells us, of course, there is no alternative but to do things like taxing fresh food, to set a price signal on health and education and jack up the GST.' No doubt he will produce the quotations, the documents where he has found us saying that, because we have said no such thing. Then you have the member for Ballarat tell the ABC in Gippsland: 'You have the Turnbull government basically saying what they want to do is raise revenue through a 15 per cent GST on fresh food and health.' We have said no such thing. The only people that keep on talking on about 15 per cent are the opposition.
There is always a little bit of poetic licence taken in political debate, but inventing statements that were never made is simply not going to persuade anyone. The opposition should think about making some solid proposals to return to the business of improving the economic efficiency of the tax system.
Before I call the member for Tangney, the members for Wakefield and Griffith interjected incessantly through that answer. Both members have been warned multiple times. I am flagging right now that there will be no more warnings. The members for Griffith and Wakefield will not interject continuously in a disorderly manner. I am not going to continue to warn them multiple times. They have run out of demerit points.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on new opportunities to expand trade and investment with Indonesia? How will this help strengthen Australia's relationship with our important neighbour?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Indonesia is one of the great rising economies of Asia. It is a $1.2 trillion economy which last year achieved a five per cent growth rate. It is the largest Muslim nation in the world, with modern, democratic leadership. It is a key partner to Australia on many of the most pressing regional and global security issues, including counter-terrorism and maritime security.
As close neighbours, Indonesia and Australia can and should do more to add greater weight to that partnership. Our priority is to build much stronger and broader trade and investment ties. So I was pleased to make Jakarta my first visit to Asia as Prime Minister. The reception from President Joko Widodo and his wife, Ibu Iriana, and the people of Jakarta could not have been warmer or more generous. The President and his wife, and Lucy and I, had very good broad-ranging discussions about growth, about jobs, about urbanisation and about investment. We discussed the priority we both attach to further expanding the people-to-people links.
Coming to people-to-people links, the highlight of that visit was when the President took me on a 'blusukan', which is what we would call, perhaps, a street walk or a visit to a shopping centre. This was to a local wholesale textile market which he had established as Governor of Jakarta. I have never witnessed so many people, so much energy, so many anxious security officers from both countries or so much enthusiasm for the President. It was one of the most exciting moments I have ever had in political life—the energy of the people in that centre and the enthusiasm for President Jokowi. As he introduced me, he kept on saying, 'Here is Prime Minister Turnbull—he is our friend. Australia are our friends.' It was a phenomenal gesture on his part and it showed the great commitment he has to saying Australia and Indonesia are very close friends. Of course, we discussed all the potential for trade, and, hard on the heels of that visit, Andrew Robb led an enormous trade delegation—four ministers and 350 Australian businesses—to last week's inaugural Indonesia-Australia Business Week.
The Indonesia-Australia relationship is getting stronger and stronger. It is built on people-to-people engagement, and I was delighted and honoured by the reception President Jokowi gave us on that day.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night, Guardian Australia published a list of 1,500 companies that can keep their tax arrangements secret from Australians. The government continues to oppose Labor amendments that would ensure tax transparency to its multinational tax bill in the Senate. Why is the Prime Minister fighting tooth and nail for megawealthy companies to keep their tax arrangements secret from Australians when the government wants to make every Australian pay more, with an increased GST?
The honourable member knows full well that the exemption of these large proprietary companies from filing their accounts with ASIC does not extend to any exemption, obviously, from giving their accounts to the Australian Taxation Office. The fact is that there is full transparency for the Australian tax office, and it has full insight into every business in Australia—every company, every proprietary company—whether it is large or small. So the changes to the bill that the honourable member's party is proposing will not raise one cent of additional tax. They make absolutely no difference to the tax collections.
Now, to save the honourable member time, I know that his colleagues have been out there talking about a company they found on that list, Turnbull & Partners Holdings Pty Ltd. That was back in the nineties—the Turnbull & Partners investment bank. You see, many of us actually had a career before we came into politics! I know it is a shock, but a lot of us made a living doing other things! I had that investment banking business for many years, in partnership with my very good friend Neville Wran, and at that time it was without question a large proprietary company.
It has remained on the list of exempt proprietary companies, but it really should not be on the list at all because it is not a large company anymore and it does not meet any of the tests of being a large company. In fact, it is a relatively small company. In any event, it is a passive investment company, as you would expect, and is, I suppose, a remnant of the investment banking partnership and business I operated so many years ago. So we will be writing to ASIC to make sure that it is no longer left on that list of large, exempt proprietary companies.
I hope that saves the Leader of the Opposition from having to make the inevitable killer counterpunch that was coming next in the pack!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on efforts to modernise Australia's economy and increase economic growth and jobs through competition reform? How do competition and productivity encourage innovation and efficiency to provide greater choice and improved services?
I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. As members may be aware, today the government outlined our response to the Harper review of competition policy. The government have accepted, wholly or in part, 44 of the 56 recommendations and have rejected none, because we know that, if you want to grow the economy and grow jobs, you need to have greater choice for consumers and you need to deliver better services.
That is why our response to the Harper review, which was released just before question time, comes together with and forms part of the broader platform for growth and jobs in our economy, whether it is by freeing up new markets, whether it is through our $50 billion national infrastructure plan that is being rolled out or whether it is through having a tax system that ensures that we can remove the impediments that have held back Australian businesses and Australians who are out there working and saving and investing every day.
What we have announced today is part of a competition and productivity agenda, because we as a government know that over the next 10 years we will not have the situation that, in particular, those opposite had, where commodity prices and the terms of trade could paper over their inability to deal with productivity challenges, and we know—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor is warned!
that right across the economy, at every level of government, you need to pursue the micro-economic reforms that are going to shore up and improve the living standards of Australians so that they can earn more and so that, as a result, the government can raise more and we can not only be in a position to fix the budget but also ensure that Australians are better off. Our response today to the Harper review is about better services, it is about greater choice and it is about a stronger economy.
We know that the previous reforms under the Hilmer process, which was started by those opposite and embraced by those on this side of the House, ensured an increase in GDP of 2½ per cent. What we have said through our response to the Harper review today is: 'We want to go with Hilmer mark 2.' We want to put in place a system of competition payments and of productivity payments, and work with the states and territories to ensure that they can focus on reforms in areas like planning and zoning, retail trading hours, road financing and infrastructure funding. Those are the areas that we know will grow the economy and grow jobs.
We are going to work consultatively and collectively with the states and territories to drive those reforms at a micro level, which will ensure jobs for future generations of Australians and ensure that we can deal with the growth in our services economy, particularly social and human services, because that is where the growth is. Young people who are coming out of school today or at training colleges and universities are going to find jobs in the health services sector and the human services sector, and Australia will be a leading provider of these services to the rest of the world. Our response today to the Harper review ensures that we have a clear plan for realising that opportunity.
My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Australia's first rental affordability index, families in New South Wales on $500 a week have to spend 65 per cent of their income to rent a home. Will the Prime Minister rule out making it even harder for renters by applying an increased GST to rent?
I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for her question. We are seeing the same questions about GST on rent that were asked yesterday. This is the same game of fantasy politics, asserting the government has a particular policy. Let me respond by posing this question: what has happened to the Labor Party since 1996? What has happened? The answer is it has gone back to the old anvil. It has walked away—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta has asked her question and will not interject!
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting! I am trying to call the member for Watson.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on direct relevance. The national conversation cannot be the Prime Minister asking questions of himself!
The member for Watson will resume his seat.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
In the interests of considering why the Labor Party is incapable of playing anything other than the old politics—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned!
I ask the question again: what has happened to the Labor Party since 1996? It has gone back to the old anvil. It has walked away from financial innovation, from opening up the economy. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Paul Keating himself. Since the Hawke-Keating reform era, which was followed by the Howard-Costello reforms, Labor has lost its imagination.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House and the Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to the order of questions. We had a question from the member for Parramatta. We then had the Prime Minister ask himself a question. Can we get the next—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler is warned!
That is the tragedy of the Labor Party. They have lost their creativity. They have lost their willingness to engage in an economic debate. The coalition government, our government, will build on the strong economic legacy left to us by John Howard and Peter Costello.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley has been warned!
Labor appears committed only to trash the economic credibility it once had.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave the House under standing order 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
I look around there. I look at the tragic figure of the member for Fraser, with all of those great works of economic analysis, all of those works dealing with the importance of value-added taxes and consumption taxes. Now every day for breakfast he has to eat another volume of his own writing, while under the whip of the member for Grayndler and the Leader of the Opposition! It is a tough life for the member for Fraser! But do not worry. We pay attention to the member's work. We think some of it is very valuable, and it is definitely going into the mix, especially the work in which the member talks about the value of a creative and flexible approach to the tax system. That is the old Labor Party. What we have today is a party broken and devoid of any imagination.
I call the member for Denison.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will relax! I am sure there is a standing order for it.
We're on Labor's call. It was the member for Parramatta.
It was the member for Parramatta who asked the question.
No, he asked himself a question!
No, and the member for Watson will resume his seat.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The member for Watson has been asked to resume his seat!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in 2012 the federal government agreed to a $325 million health funding boost for Tasmania to patch up the health system and put it on a more sustainable footing. But that money runs out next year, so our health services and consumers will be set back badly unless follow-on funding is forthcoming.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.
Prime Minister, will you commit to a new funding package, and when do you expect to announce the details?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I can advise him that the Tasmanian health assistance package was a four-year funding package targeted to ease pressures and equip Tasmania's health system to meet future challenges. The Australian government established the Commission on Delivery of Health Services in Tasmania to provide advice on the key opportunities for structural and system improvement in the honourable member's state. That report was delivered in April last year.
On 28 June this year, the Tasmanian government released its One state, one health system, better outcomes health reform white paper. That white paper outlined Tasmania's health reform agenda in order to achieve high-quality, safe and efficient services for the Tasmanian community into the future.
My government continues to support Tasmania through a range of health initiatives. We have recently announced an additional $148.5 million for the Mersey hospital operations over the next two years and an additional $20.7 million for acute and subacute projects, giving certainty to Tasmania while it works through the reform of the health system. This is in addition to the public hospital funding. In 2015-16, the federal government will provide an estimated $16.4 billion to the states and territories to fund public hospitals. This is an estimated increase in funding of 6.3 per cent compared to 2014-15. Of that, Tasmania will receive an estimated $348.5 million in 2015-16.
I thank the honourable member for his question. The commitment of the coalition members from Tasmania has been absolutely relentless in ensuring that there is adequate funding for Tasmanian public health services, and we will continue to work closely with the Hodgman government to deliver just that.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to deepen trade and investment ties, especially commercial linkages, with Indonesia?
I thank the member for his question—a member who very effectively represents his electorate, and a vibrant rural sector is very much a part of that electorate. I must say that I felt a little bit guilty taking the question before the mandatory three questions to Christopher Pyne. I had the privilege, last week, of leading Australia's biggest ever commercial delegation to Indonesia as part of the inaugural Indonesia Australia Business Week, with some 360 delegates. Indonesia is a market of 250 million people, with a rising middle class and more than 50 per cent of their population under 30. It is a market and a neighbour we simply cannot afford to ignore, as evidenced by Indonesia's remarkable, yet somewhat unnoticed, development over the last 15 years.
In 1999 Indonesia's GDP was $75 billion and there were four million people in the middle class—15 years ago. Today, Indonesia's GDP is $1.2 trillion up from $75 billion, with 50—not four—million people making up their middle class. The growth in trade across the ASEAN, of which Indonesia constitutes one-third, is expected to increase by $3 trillion over the next 10 years. Indonesia itself is forecast to become the fourth biggest economy in the world within 15 to 20 years, yet our trade and investment relationship is grossly undercooked. In some regard, we have looked past one another over much of the last 15 to 20 years. We see only 245 Australian companies with a presence in Indonesia, yet by comparison we have 360 Australian companies in Dubai—a country you could throw a stone across, yet here we have Indonesia with 17,000 islands across the Indonesia archipelago. We need a critical mass of companies, at least 1,000, taking up opportunities that are emerging.
For both commercial and compelling geopolitical reasons, we need to deepen our ties with this close neighbour. There are endless opportunities to leverage one another's strengths for mutual benefit. As well, the country is starting to liberalise in a way we have not seen for decades. We have got live cattle, where we are good at breeding; Indonesia is about the best in the world at fattening. Australia's wheat is our biggest export to India. They produce noodles, pasta and biscuits for local and export consumption. Business Week turned out to be very timely. We have to develop our relationship in a most powerful way and build the trust to turn up our relationship so that we can both capitalise.
My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Australia's first rental affordability index, families in Queensland who are on $500 a week have to spend 54 per cent of their income to rent a home. While these families are already doing it tough, will the Prime Minister rule out making it even harder for them by raising the price of everything with an increased GST?
To answer the question, I think issues of rental affordability and issues housing affordability are incredibly important. That is why today, in our response to the Harper review, we said that we want to engage with the states and territories on reforms to planning and zoning laws that deal with the single biggest driver of housing prices in the country, which is the lack of supply. So, on this side of the House, we are actually focused on economic solutions that will support and boost housing affordability in this country by focusing on the things that are denying young Australians, in particular, the ability to get in and buy a home—and you do that by addressing the supply issues.
But there are also major challenges that have to be addressed with the provision of social housing by the states. This is another important area where there can be major reform, where we will work with the states and territories right across the board to ensure that we can deliver social housing support—and the Minister for Social Services is a passionate advocate on this—to ensure we work with the system between Commonwealth rental assistance and how social housing is delivered at a state level. We can work through the reforms, because we are working with the states and territories to deliver better outcomes and better choices for the Australian people.
Those opposite may want to continue to raise their scare campaigns, the not-so-scary scare campaigns, about a 15 per cent figure, which is getting everybody excited for all the wrong reasons on their side of the House today. But we are focused on the economic reforms that are going to support Australians to get into houses, that are going to support Australians to access more affordable rental accommodation in this country, because we have real solutions to those problems.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on Australia's international security cooperation and how this supports efforts to counter terrorism at home and abroad?
I thank the member for Forde for his question. The recent shocking attacks in Paris, Mali, Lebanon, Turkey and on a Russian jet over Egypt are a stark reminder that no country, no people, is immune from terrorism. The Australian government is acutely aware that terrorism is a global threat that demands a global response. We are committed to working cooperatively with nations around the world to combat terrorist organisations and Islamic extremists and to counter their hideous ideology. These are matters that I discuss constantly with my counterpart foreign ministers around the world.
Australia is strengthening its high-level security cooperation with key partners in Europe. We are increasing our intelligence exchange with France on foreign terrorist fighters. We are establishing a strategic dialogue at ministerial level with Germany that will address our shared security and counterterrorism concerns. In the Middle East, we are a leading military contributor to the US-led coalition to counter ISIL, Daesh and its affiliates. A network of counterterrorism agreements, including with the United Arab Emirates, is enhancing our cooperation in monitoring the movement of suspected foreign terrorist fighters through Middle East transit hubs, as we seek to deprive the terrorists of the fighters they need to carry out attacks. Closer to home, we are continuing to build capability in South-East Asia to combat terrorism, in particular with Malaysia on regional strategies to counter terrorist narratives and in the Philippines by assisting in the management of prisoners convicted of terrorist offences.
Our extensive security cooperation with Indonesia covers law enforcement, intelligence sharing, blocking terrorist financing, aviation transport security and prison management. This cooperation is all the more urgent, given that there are estimates that around 700 Indonesian foreign terrorist fighters are currently in the Middle East and that around 40 fighters have already returned to Indonesia.
Our experiences in Bali in 2002 and 2005 remind us all too painfully that the risks to Australia posed by radicalised and battle-hardened Islamic extremists in Indonesia cannot ever be underestimated. Disturbingly, the most recent Global Terrorism Index reports that terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest-ever recorded level. And 2015 does not appear to be an improvement on that.
But this is a shared global challenge, and Australia is playing a leading role across the world—with our primary responsibility always to ensure that we keep our people and our country as safe as possible from terrorism.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Australian Political Exchange Council’s 10th Delegation from New Zealand. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier this year the chief executive of the Housing Industry Association, Graham Wolfe said:
Adding another five per cent, or more, on top of the price of a new home will put housing out of reach of many people that are trying desperately to get into the market.
Can the Prime Minister explain why he thinks it is fair to make buying a house even more expensive by increasing the GST?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is now warned!
I can only refer the honourable member to the numerous answers that I have given to the proposition that is constantly being put by the opposition, that the government is planning to impose a 15 per cent GST. The government has no plans to do that. We are looking at a whole range of tax reform measures, and his rather feeble efforts to get us to rule something in or something out—to salami-slice the whole—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The interjections! The honourable member for Isaacs! I mentioned Neville Wran earlier today, who I miss—he was a great friend. He was also very witty, but he had a very good point to make that I always think of when the member for Isaacs interjects—that anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer! It is beyond feeble!
Now getting back to the critical point that the Treasurer spoke about a moment ago, which was housing affordability. That is a very, very big issue. There has been a huge amount of work done on housing affordability over many years, and it is quite clear what the problem is. The problem is that we are not building enough dwellings in Australia. Supply is not meeting demand. That is particularly so in Sydney, where it is more of a problem than it is, for example, in either Melbourne or Brisbane.
The big obstacles are planning laws and systems, where it takes too long to get consent—to get a DA. Many developers have told me it takes three times as long to get a DA in Sydney as it does in Brisbane, for example. That is why the types of reforms that the Treasurer is seeking to achieve with the states—and, obviously, planning is very much in the realm of state and local governments—are so important. The best thing that we can do to assist the members of the Housing Industry Association—
Mr Husic interjecting—
in delivering more dwellings is to ensure that the planning system ceases to be so arteriosclerotic that supply cannot meet demand. That is the fundamental problem.
Reform in this area is something that has been left undone for far too long. We have known for well over a decade what the problem is: we need more dwellings. I can assure you that insofar as we can we will endeavour to get the planning system freed up so that housing becomes more affordable.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on the first international cargo flight which landed and departed from the new Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport on the outskirts of Toowoomba yesterday? And the member for Grayndler did not built that one either!
The member for Groom will ask his question!
How will this type of investment and development in agricultural export opportunities help to build a stronger Australian economy?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley has been warned!
I thank the honourable member for his question—the honourable member who has done so much for the people of Groom. He has represented them so well. He started his role with grain growers and continues his role in making sure that they get the Toowoomba range crossing, which has now started construction. And he is a member who has also been absolutely at the wheel to make sure that this new airport—the first airport built with all private money and the first airport built in greenfields in 50 years—has started. It has not only become a great endowment for the people of Toowoomba but a great endowment for the people of New England, a great endowment for the people of Parkes, a great endowment for the people of the Lockyer Valley and a great endowment for those in agriculture. It connects these people directly up to markets in Asia.
If we look in the first shipment we see organic chicken that has gone from the seat of Maranoa; pecan nuts that have gone from the seat of Parkes; beef going from my seat—from Bindaree and Rangers Valley; from Story Fresh—obviously, we have produce going from the seat of Groom; and from Mort & Co. we have produce coming from all over Queensland. We also see Stanbroke Pastoral meat—that abattoir is in the member for Wright's seat—and we see mangoes that have come from the seat of Dawson—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth is now warned!
We also see mangoes coming from the seat of Oxley—and it is good to see Mr Ripoll here from the seat of Oxley. So all round this has been a great endorsement for agriculture.
To think now that we can move up to 130 tonnes a day—130 tonnes a day!—from this new airport as we work towards the process of making sure we get all the approvals in place so that we can create a conduit of wealth that is from not only the ports on the coast but is now also from the ports inland. This can be first as an example for other areas.
We always see that it is this side of the chamber that has the real vision to deliver real outcomes. We can see from what we do that we have a plan and that our plan will see delivery. It will see the delivery of such things as—
An opposition member interjecting—
We know what you want to put on the plane to Shanghai. And here comes the brains trust!
The minister—
Has the minister concluded his answer?
No.
The minister needs to indicate—
Is this a point of order?
one thing he has done to claim any credit—
The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
What was that? It is good to see that we have on this side of the parliament people who are giving you record cattle prices with new markets and new airports. We are delivering. We are making people's lives better. I commend all the work done by the work a family to bring this about.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton has been warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the Housing Industry Association:
An increase of 5 per cent in the GST on a typical house and land package in Sydney will increase the cost of a mortgage by around $60,000 over the life of the loan.
Why is the Prime Minister so intent on making the dream of home ownership even harder by increasing the GST?
Mr Matheson interjecting—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Macarthur will not interject, and I remind the member for Herbert that he has been warned. This is his final warning.
I thank the Prime Minister. It would seem it is my turn on this one. It is the same question. We will take it in turns to give you basically the same answer! Those opposite constantly raise prospects of proposals that are not being put forward by the government. What the member is referring to is something that was said back in July in relation to something that was not a proposal of the government. Those on this side of the House have been taking the issue of housing affordability very seriously. I have to just mention that in what we are seeking to do in freeing up supply we on this side of the House are ensuring that there are proper controls on foreign investment in residential real estate.
It is those on this side of the House who have been putting additional resources into the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that we can find those individuals, those foreign residents, who have been seeking to thwart our foreign investment rules to buy properties, particularly in Melbourne. There have been a host of those properties—most recently a week and a half ago there was a $5 million property—that the Australian Taxation Office has been able to identify.
Those opposite scoff. Here is the chief scoffer now.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question did not refer to $5 million homes. We are talking about people getting their dream of—
The member for Watson will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Those opposite may not be aware that whether it is foreign residents taking advantage of a property at about $150,000 or at $5 million you need to ensure you have a system of enforcing regulations that ensure that home buyers can have a fair go. This government is enforcing the rules around residential real estate and foreign investment. If the member cared to inquire he would know that we are cracking down not just on those properties at $5 million but on properties right down to $200,000 as well.
We know that we need to act to ensure that first home buyers and other homebuyers across the country are getting a fair go when they turn up to an auction or go into a real estate agent's office. They can have confidence that this government understands the problem, is acting on that problem and is getting results. Those opposite just simply scoff.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Western Sydney is Australia's third-largest economy. As one of our nation's fastest growing regions, over the next decade a million more people will call our region home. As it stands, two-thirds of our Lindsay workforce must commute every day for their employment. Can the Prime Minister please explain how the government's agenda in innovation, infrastructure and cities will create smart jobs for our children in Western Sydney?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I note how passionately and persuasively she has advocated for better infrastructure in her community. I have been a regular visitor on the train. Always get the Blue Mountain train, Mr Speaker. It has fewer stops. I have been out there on the train to Penrith. In April we opened the Werrington business precinct—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
which will connect researchers from the University of Western Sydney with business and help commercialise their ideas.
We returned there last month with the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Assistant Minister for Science, the Assistant Minister for Innovation and representatives from some of Australia's leading tech start-ups and universities. We had a very, very constructive working session, with the member for Lindsay talking about the content of the government's innovation statement, which will be released shortly.
Over the next 20 years, that precinct, which is dedicated to innovation—and we met some amazing start-ups there, some really outstanding, innovative companies that are working in the collaborative spaces there to create jobs, energy and investment in Western Sydney—will have the capacity to generate 6,000 jobs. I also note the Sydney Science Park, which is also in the honourable member's electorate. That was recently opened. That will have the capacity to create 12,200 jobs, educate 10,000 students and provide a place to live for those 10,000 students as well.
In terms of infrastructure, we are the first government in generations to push ahead and start planning the design for a second airport in Western Sydney. That is a foundation stone for the wider planning and strategy needed for Western Sydney to continue its growth as an international hub. It is vital that there be more investment and more jobs in Western Sydney.
Sydney, the city where I live, which I love, has one big defect: its central business district is nowhere near the centre; it is actually out on the eastern edge of the city. So we need to see strong economic growth, jobs and industry right through the city, including centres like Parramatta, Penrith and Campbelltown, because otherwise the city becomes utterly unbalanced. If the airport is going to be a significant part of that infrastructure development in Western Sydney—
An opposition member interjecting—
The honourable member opposite says, 'Rubbish'. It is hard to believe that the Labor Party imagines that they can represent Western Sydney when they write off the airport as rubbish. They have checked out on Western Sydney.
My question is to the Treasurer. Did the Treasurer discuss the Foreign Investment Review Board application relating to S Kidman & Co with the minister for agriculture prior to making his decision to reject the application?
The decision was taken in accordance with the normal process.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. The Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983 devastated parts of the Dandenong Ranges, including Cockatoo and Belgrave Heights. Sadly, 20 lives were lost in Upper Beaconsfield and, tragically, 12 CFA volunteers paid the ultimate sacrifice in Beaconsfield. What action is the government taking to reduce excessive weed growth in the Dandenong Ranges, and what benefits are there to the environment?
I want to thank the member for La Trobe, who, as a former member of the police force, has worked with the emergency services over many years. He knows the risks and challenges that the Dandenong Ranges face in dry seasons, as do you, Mr Speaker, and this may well be one of the driest seasons.
Over the last two years, largely at the instigation of both the Speaker and, in particular, the member for La Trobe, the government has implemented the $3 million Dandenong Ranges Wildlife Recovery, Weed Management and Fuel Reduction Program, $2.4 million of which has been allocated to fuel reduction. Twenty-nine community groups have already participated and received just over $1 million of grant funding. What does this mean? It means that groups such as the Belgrave South CFA have been able to reduce weeds and fuel loads to reduce the risk of bushfire. We cannot remove that risk entirely, but we can decrease the chances and mitigate the consequences. This is a very important action. In addition, groups such as the Friends of Sassafras Creek have undertaken practical work in reducing weed and fuel loads and rehabilitating and restoring native habitat by removing invasive species. These are very practical environmental programs, which are helping the local environment, supporting community groups and, in particular, reducing and mitigating the risk of bushfires.
Another $450,000 has been allocated to removing wandering trad in an area that is one of Australia's great natural habitats. These invasive species offer a risk to the viability of the native wildlife and, in particular, the native plants. There has been a removal and a rehabilitation program, as well as support for Indigenous groups. On top of that, I think we have allocated nine Green Army projects so far, of which five have been completed, two are underway and another two are due to start shortly. In particular, they have attacked the problem of invasive species, given opportunities to young people and made a real difference to the Dandenong Ranges. It is an important combination of events and projects. The Dandenong Ranges Wildlife Recovery, Weed Management and Fuel Reduction Program is helping community groups and the environment—and, along with the Green Army, it is giving young people a real opportunity to find work and a future for themselves.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Sachin Pilot, President of the Rajasthan state unit of the Indian Congress Party. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Has the minister had any discussions with potential domestic buyers of S Kidman & Co, and, if so, which buyers and when?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He is hardly Inspector Clouseau, is he? The answer is no.
My question is to the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills. In my electorate of Calare a number of young people who have recently completed year 12 have asked me about opportunities for further study and employment. Will the minister please update the House on how the government is supporting young people to develop their skills and their futures?
I thank the member for his question. The member for Calare is a member who understands the importance of young people achieving their potential. If a young person is to achieve that potential in the 21st century, it is vital that they invest in their skills, through either a higher education path, such as through the very fine Charles Sturt University in the electorate of Calare, or a VET path, through a range of great TAFEs and registered training providers. There are great opportunities for young people in Calare, who are represented by the good member.
For those young people who want to pursue employment and earn as they learn, there are some great opportunities through apprenticeships and traineeships, which allow young people to learn on the job but also receive the skills that they need to make them employable into the future. Having work experience and theoretical training at the same time is a great opportunity for young people. Apprenticeships can be highly attractive to young people who want to move into their own business at an early age—great opportunities to create the next generation of young entrepreneurs.
I am pleased to advise the House that there are some 2,100 apprentices currently in training in the electorate of Calare, supported by the Australian Apprenticeship Support Network providing support to apprentices to navigate the apprenticeships system and providing support for employers to retain and apprentice during that training. We need to ensure that we increase commencements, but we also need to ensure that we increase completions, and that support network is doing great work in assisting that to occur. Local businesses are supporting apprentices in the good member's electorate. We have businesses such as Finemore Transport employing apprentices. We have the police service taking on apprentices. We have the Blayney Shire Council and Skillset, a group training authority, taking on apprentices.
We are absolutely focused on developing the skills that this country needs going forward. That is why we have Australian apprentice incentives, that is why we have the Apprenticeship Support Network and that is why we have trade support loans—great programs to support apprentices and skills training. But if a young person is to make the right choices, it is important that they have the right information. That is why we have the My Skills website to provide the sort of information that young people need to make an informed decision about their training needs, which can assist them into the future. The government are about developing Australia's skilled workforce for the future. We are focused on higher education. We are focused on vocational education and training. We want to see that Australia has the skilled workforce that it needs for the future.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the Treasurer unwilling to disclose to the House whether he discussed the Foreign Investment Review Board application relating to S Kidman & Co with the Minister for Agriculture? Does the Treasurer stand by his previous claim that his decision to reject the application was based on formal FIRB advice?
The FIRB advice is exactly in accordance with the decision that I took, and it was written advice too. So that was the decision taken. As a former Treasurer, the member for McMahon would know that ministers are able to canvass widely and talk to as many people—
Opposition members interjecting—
I did not talk to you because I did not think you would have much to offer. But I canvassed widely with colleagues about these issues—my ministerial colleagues, cabinet colleagues and others. It is part of the normal process, and that is important because I talk to my colleagues about many issues. I have also been talking to my colleagues about the foreign investment changes that we had passed in the Senate last night. Those changes, for example, saw a reduction in the thresholds for rural land and agribusinesses, to ensure that there will be greater FIRB scrutiny when it comes to agricultural land and agribusiness purchases. You know who opposed that? Those opposite. Those opposite think that it is quite okay to have the thresholds at such high levels. They did not change them when they were in government. On this side of the House, we think that it is quite necessary to have a close look at foreign investment in rural land, agricultural land and in agribusinesses. We have made changes to achieve that, but those opposite think that it should be carte blanche. They think it should go to the highest bidder, whoever they are, and they can just roll in and do whatever they like. That is what they think about residential real estate too.
But this government knows that you need to ensure that you have good, strong laws that protect the national interest and that you act on them and implement them in the national interest. That is what we did on Kidman. That is what we did on the laws that went through the Senate last night. That is what we will do in relation to all of these investments. We will look after the national interest. I do not know what they are looking out for or who they are looking out for.
My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects. Would the minister please update the House and the people of Petrie about the progress of the construction of the Moreton Bay Rail Link, as locals have been notified that the rail corridor will be electrified on 2 December? What has the federal government done in the last two years to fund this project? How has the federal government been working with the Queensland state government and local government—
Mr Speaker—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member is entitled to ask his question. I remind the member for Grayndler that he has been warned. The member for Petrie can complete his question.
What has the federal government done in the last two years to fund this project? How has the federal government been working with the Queensland state government and the local council to make it a reality?
Mr Speaker—
I remind the member for Grayndler that he is warned and it is very difficult to take a point of order when the minister has not uttered a word.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question. You can take a point of order on the question and whether the question is in order. Given that the project was completely funded by the previous government prior to the election, the question surely is out of order.
The question is in order. The member for Grayndler is out of order, and he will leave under 94(a).
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. I thank the member for Petrie for his tenacity in seeking and gaining the call. But, more importantly, I thank him for his strong work as an advocate for the people of Petrie. He never stops engaging with his constituents in the suburbs of North Lakes, Mango Hill and Rothwell. He is doing street stalls. He is in the coffee shops. He is working hard. I was very pleased to visit the member recently for the unveiling of the Mango Hill Station as part of the new Moreton Bay Rail Link. I was pleased, with the member, to speak with the Mango Hill Progress Association. What could be a stronger piece of evidence of progress in Mango Hill than the work which is occurring on this 14-kilometre new double track passenger rail line from Kippa-Ring to Lawton? Six stations are now practically complete, including Murrumba Downs, Mango Hill, Mango Hill East and several other stations. This is a significant achievement.
Mr Speaker, I do want to correct the record on something that was said incorrectly and inaccurately by the member for Grayndler before you asked him to leave. The reality of the figures is that $64.6 million was paid for this project prior to September 2013, but the total funding from the Commonwealth is $583 million. So far the Abbott and Turnbull governments have paid $368.4 million and we will pay a further $150 million. The former Labor member for Petrie, quite misleadingly, was telling people in the last election campaign that this link would not be built if the coalition came to power. She was quite wrong.
Of course, we have the member for Grayndler, who really is likely the Pete Best of the parliament. In everything that comes up he says, 'I was there. I was in Hamburg drumming away. I am really part of the Beatles. I am really one of the big performers here.' This is the man who claims he was responsible for the building of the pyramids, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the palace of Versailles. I think he had a bit to do with the Taj Mahal. Albo is partly responsible for Mount Rushmore, apparently, and he claimed credit for the Trans-Siberian Railway. What about the Three Gorges Dam—why has Albo not been properly acknowledged for his role in the Three Gorges Dam?
The minister will refer to people by their correct titles.
The fact is that he is one of the great pretenders. He is like one of the shadowy figures in one of the European capitals saying, 'I'm really entitled to the crown.' But he is not. He is in opposition. He has gone. The Turnbull government is delivering this project and the advocacy of the member for Petrie is critical to delivering this to the people of Petrie.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday during question time, when he referred to a statement. That statement makes reference to 'allegations involving the disclosure of diary notes of Mr Slipper'. Directly in that context, I ask the minister: did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you? Does the government regard an action of that nature as appropriate?
I thank the honourable member for his continued interest in this subject. I will just point him back to the comments that I made on 18 November in that statement. I have nothing further to add.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Minister, I have received correspondence from some concerned residents in the Lower Blue Mountains who are concerned about the proposed Western Sydney Airport's impact on aerial firefighting and hazard reduction activities in the Blue Mountains, given that this is a bushfire-prone area. Minister, can you please advise my constituents what impact the proposed airport will have on these activities?
I thank the honourable member for her question. It is a very serious matter and particularly significant at this time of the year, when we have already had an early beginning to the bushfire season with the tragic loss of life at Esperance. I am disappointed that there are letters circulating in the honourable member's electorate suggesting that for some reason or other the Western Sydney Airport will hamper and hinder the fighting of bushfires and backburning in the electorate, particularly in the Blue Mountains and surrounding areas.
This, of course, is a ridiculous scare campaign. If anything, having the airport close by will make it easier to undertake backburning and fight any bushfires which may break out. It is important to note that, under the Australian flight rules, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority gives priority to any aircraft that is operating in and out of an airport and is involved in firefighting or, for that matter, flood relief or other accident or emergency procedures. They get priority. The 737s and the A380s have to wait for the firefighting aircraft. So the capacity to fight fires in the Blue Mountains will be enhanced as a result of having the Western Sydney Airport. The firefighters and anyone engaged will have access to a runway that is closer and refuelling facilities that are closer and, therefore, should be able to do much, much more in being able to address firefighting concerns.
We have practical experience of this. When there have been fires in the Royal National Park, that has not stopped operations out of Kingsford Smith Airport; nor has the Kingsford Smith Airport been a hindrance in any way to the operation of firefighting services when that is necessary in areas like the National Park. So I can give an absolute assurance to the people of the honourable member's electorate that firefighting, backburning and normal maintenance activities that occur to try and protect an area from fire will not in any way be adversely affected as a result of the construction of the Western Sydney Airport.
It is reasonable that people should raise issues during this time when objections can be raised about the plans for the Western Sydney Airport, but I do ask that people base their commentary on a reasonable assessment of the facts and not in any way seek to scare people or to cause unnecessary concern in this regard. I therefore thank the honourable member for the work that she is doing in helping to explain these issues to local people. It is an important issue, and I can give the people of the region an assurance that firefighting activities will not be in any way impeded as a result of this airport project.
My question is again to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday in the House and to his answer just now. When asked the same question on 60 Minutes last year, the minister responded, 'Yes, I did.' Minister, what has changed? Why won't he repeat that answer now? Is the reason he will not repeat that answer now that the government believes that such an action is inappropriate?
Again I thank you for the question and remind you that these matters are subject to other inquiries. There is nothing further that I can to what I have said in the statements.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, many of my constituents have contacted me to ask what Australia's role will be at the upcoming climate change conference in Paris. Minister, would you please update the House on the details of the Paris climate change agreement? What will Australia's role be in negotiations?
I thank the member for Ryan for her question and I am happy to answer her constituents' inquiries about this matter because Australia does have a very positive story to tell in relation to climate change and the positive, pragmatic action we are taking to reduce our share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Last August, we announced that the proposed target that we would take to the Paris climate change meeting in November and December this year was achievable, sensible and in our national interest—and that was a target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Australia's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions in total terms is small—it is about one per cent—but on a per capita basis it is much more significant. What this target will achieve is an effective halving of our per capita emissions and that is significant. It also means we will reduce our emissions on a per unit of GDP target by about two-thirds. That is why it has been a target widely welcomed but we do know it is achievable.
At the Lima conference, in 2014, it was agreed by all countries present that each country would nationally determine their own targets and their own climate change commitments. That means no other country can dictate Australia's targets and our climate change commitments—the United Nations cannot. Each target is nationally determined by the relevant country. I am pleased to announce that we understand that at least 170 countries have already put forward their targets to take to next month's meeting in Paris. Those 170 countries represent about 93 per cent of global emissions and about 98 per cent of global GDP and we expect more will come online.
Our role in Paris will be to ensure that we negotiate an outcome for Australia that is in our national interest. The Minister for the Environment and I, having responsibility for Australia's treaty obligations, will be there to ensure that we play a constructive role. Our targets are not for negotiation but what we will be doing is focusing on a global agreement that includes developing and developed countries to ensure that there is accountability and transparency about how each country intends to meet their targets. Australia has a reputation for saying what we will do and then doing what we say we will do—because we have not only met our targets for the 2008-2012 period, we have exceeded them. We will meet our 2012-2020 target—in fact, I believe we will exceed it—and we have most certainly put forward a constructive target for 2030 that I believe is in our interests and will be achievable. We will play a constructive role.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 9 of 2015-16 entitled Test and evaluation of major Defence equipment acquisitions: Department of Defence.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b) I ask that you write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development seeking reasons for the delay in answering a question in writing. The question, which seeks information on the origins of the initial proposal for the Perth freight link, appears as No. 1549 on the Notice Paper.
I will write to the minister.
I have received letters from the honourable member for Watson and the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Watson, namely:
The real cost of increasing the GST.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
There are a number of national conversations going on at the moment. We have just discovered in the last hour, in an online article from James Massola, that one of them happens in the Monkey Pod room every week or so, where those who yearn for the good old days are plotting the return of the conservative forces on those opposite. But no matter how the conversations in the Monkey Pod room go, the national conversation that every Australian does know they need to be concerned about is the national conversation about the increase to the base and rate of the GST. Be in no doubt that those opposite will have a view that you cannot participate in the conversation if you have a view. They will say, 'You're not part of the national conversation because you say you don't want to do it.' They are happy to have a national conversation so long as you do not believe in anything, so long as you do not put forward a view. Well, Labor is in this conversation and Labor will oppose an increase in the GST. Labor will oppose a broadening of the GST because households cannot afford it, the budget cannot afford it and the economy cannot afford it.
On household impact, we have heard in question time today about the extent to which people in the suburbs are being hit by rental affordability and housing affordability. Whenever those opposite want to talk about the impact, they say, 'We would be able to come up with some sort of compensation scheme.' Be in no doubt that what they are proposing now is more inflationary and has a bigger cost-of-living impact than anything John Howard ventured to do. When John Howard brought in a GST, he removed the wholesale sales tax and reduced fuel excise at the same time. That minimised the inflationary impact. When you go from 10 per cent to 15 per cent, you cannot remove underlying taxes that are already gone. You have a bigger inflationary impact for the areas where the GST already applies and, for those where it does not, it goes straight from zero per cent to 15 per cent in terms of inflationary impact.
What does that mean for people receiving any layer of compensation? If you are in the payment system, if you are getting family payments, the government will say: 'But we will improve your family payments.' The problem is they are cutting them. The same families that are receiving cuts of up to $4,700 get told, 'If a GST comes in, we will give you a little bit back of what we have cut.' Guess what? People are not stupid. They know they are still behind in that equation.
If you are on a modest income, you have already had your income tax scales shifted, massively, because of changes that were brought in when Labor was in government. When we moved the bottom tax threshold from $6,000 to $18,200 we took a million people out of the tax system. Any change those opposite want to make on the income tax scales offers absolutely nothing for people on those sorts of incomes. If you are working in retail for, roughly, 20 or 18 hours a week—as many coupled families have one member of the family working those sorts of hours—you are, largely, already outside of the income tax system. Yet your fixed costs, if you live in a major city, may be completely disproportionate to the income you receive.
Let us not forget the information brought forward in question time today by the member for Parramatta on the first rental affordability index for New South Wales. If you are a family on $500 a week you are spending 65 per cent of your income on rent. Not only does that leave very little room to move, to pay the rest of the bills, the government will not even rule out making the rent dearer as well by applying the 15 per cent to the rent. They will not even rule out doing that.
With the housing boom in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and various other parts of Australia, the difference in housing prices now means that even now people who might be regarded as being on good incomes have almost no room in their disposable income. They will be completely outside any compensation package, but it does not change the fact that if you hit the cost of living these families with big mortgages, in areas like Western Sydney, have almost nowhere to move.
When you increase the GST it means it costs you more every time you go to the supermarket. It means it costs you more to go to the doctor or the hospital. It costs you more every time your kids need schoolbooks and uniforms and when the bills for school fees come in. It means this year's Christmas will be the last that will not have the government's plan, potentially, being threatened against it once they get to admitting the conversation that they know they began. And if they do not want to begin it, they can rule out parts of it at any moment. They have not, because, at their heart, they always believe in providing more regressive taxation.
What are the reasons? The households cannot afford it but also the budget cannot afford what they are talking about. They are suggesting the GST will deliver cuts to personal income tax, cuts to company tax, abolishing stamp duty on insurance, abolishing payroll tax, funding to the states for schools and hospitals, cutting fuel excise and abolishing car rego fees. They say it is also going to pay down national debt.
We have been here before. When John Howard introduced the GST the budget ended up $21 billion worse off. If you go through the numbers and look at what the GST currently raises and how much more you would raise by expanding the base and increasing the rate, and then you look at how much they are willing to spend by doing that, the black hole from those opposite is astonishing. At the moment, in a year, the GST raises $57.3 billion. If you broaden the base and increase the rate to 15 per cent, by 2017-18 you get a further $65.6 billion, more than doubling the GST. On the issues they have said they want to spend it on, what do they do with this $65.6 billion? They spend $128.9 billion. That is what they have done. They have opened up a $63 billion black hole, every year, with the expectations they have set on the GST.
Beyond that, it is not only that the budget cannot afford it, with the expectations they have set up, it is also the fact that the economy cannot afford it. We heard, today, their arguments against wanting to do something on tobacco excise. We heard their arguments about wanting to put a price on carbon. Be in no doubt: if you price something you are putting a marker there that you want people to avoid the tax, that you want people to do less of that. That is when you price a good. That is the idea. The reason you price cigarettes is that you end up with a situation where fewer people smoke.
What is the policy intention of saying they are going to put a price on fresh food? What possible good policy outcome is there from saying fresh food will become more expensive? Medical care becomes more expensive. Education becomes more expensive. At every level, what they are proposing is bad for households, bad for the budget and bad for the economy. The only thing they will say is, 'Yes, but the GST is so efficient.' Yes, it is efficient at targeting people who cannot afford it. It is efficient at putting up every single price. It is efficient at hurting people, in the economy, who have a situation where they have very little financial room to move. And it puts a price on products where you would never have a sensible policy argument in saying you wanted to increase the cost of those goods.
The approach on this by those opposite—I will give them one thing—has been consistent. The only inconsistency is they do not admit to it. But they know, full well, that people on modest incomes get a bad deal out of this. They know, full well, that people who have the cost of living already stretched have nowhere to go. No compensation package will help them. Whatever might come in in compensation, the rule will apply that the compensation will be temporary and the GST cost increase will be permanent and will grow year on year on year. I can see the member for Mitchell looking so distressed. He does not want this to happen. He is swearing across the chamber at me as he goes there now.
The problem is the people who are really going to be pained by this are the people who are the member for Mitchell's targets, who he will never look after. Labor will stand in the way of those opposite, every time they try to hit lower- and middle-income Australians.
It is like it is 1998 all over again. It is a time warp. It is a bit of Pulp Fiction. It is, 'Let's do the time warp again,' from the member for Watson, because here is today, not articulating of course the magic number 15, which the opposition has been talking about relentlessly, week in, week out, month after month, day after day, 15 this, 15 that, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, and suddenly today—no 15 per cent. What has changed today? Why don't we hear about the 15 per cent GST that they are proposing today? Why don't we hear about the number 15, Member for Watson? Why did you have to revert to the 1998 debate about why the GST was bad?
The Australian public already know that the Labor Party opposed the introduction of the GST; one of the most retrograde events in Australian political history, opposing what was a sensible reform to the tax system of that opposition. Here we are, almost 17 years later, and the member for Watson is seeking to continue to prosecute the argument against the goods and services tax—a proposal that has been adopted by the Australian people, a proposal that has been adopted by every state and territory, which has worked to broaden the base of the tax system, abolish inefficient taxes and secure the funding base for the states into the future. And there is not one argument today, not a single argument, about why the Australian tax system is in need of reform.
If the member for Watson was serious about contributing to the conversation that we are having, if he wanted to have a discussion, he would have discussed why the 15 per cent is not good in his opinion and what combination of taxes need to be abolished to make it work. That is the conversation that the government is having with the Australian people: what combination of tax reform is needed to ensure that we have a tax system that is fit for purpose for the 21st century?
If you really wanted it, if you were really serious about opposing the GST, when you came to office in 2007, you could have taken action to reduce the rate of the GST. You could have had that conversation with the Australian people. But we know and every member on this side knows that the Labor Party did have a conversation about the GST while they were in office from 2007 to 2013. They did have a conversation. But it was not a public conversation. It was not a conversation with the people listening or the people in the gallery; it was not a conversation with the government. It was not a process about 'What can we do to reform the tax system?'
The shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen had modelled three scenarios for the increase to the GST, not a conversation with the Australian people—and the member for Griffith would be interested in this, because she was not here; it was the former member for Griffith's government that modelled this. There were three scenarios to increase the GST modelled by a Labor government, modelled by a Treasury at the direction of the shadow Treasurer. We do not have scenario 1; we do not know what scenario 1 was. We do not know what scenario 2 was. No-one in the Australian public knows what scenario 1 was or what scenario 2 was. What was the rate that the government of the day was considering—the Labor government? What was the increase to the base they were considering? But we do know what scenario 3 was. We have part of scenario 3 here, and I am happy to read from scenario 3 of the secret Labor modelling, commissioned by the shadow Treasurer on increasing the base and the rate of the GST, 'Scenario 3, increase the GST rate to 12.5 per cent'. You can see the relief over there that it is not 15. They do not want to talk about 15 today. They are very relieved.
Scenario 3 says, 'increase the GST to 12.5 per cent and broaden the base'. Would that be for food, Member for Watson? What were you intending when you were modelling 'broadening the base' of the GST when you were in government? What did you mean by 'broadening the base'? Did you mean fresh food? Did you mean education? Did you mean health? Did you mean rents? Because here is a document produced by your Treasury, produced out of your government, 'Scenario 3, increase the GST rate to 12.5 per cent and broaden the base'.
This document shows the estimated price impact on households. I am happy to record this for the Australian public, because the Labor Party did not want to have this conversation with the Australian people. The Labor Party held this conversation in secret with Treasury and its ministers but would not release this modelling for the Australian people.
Let's examine the impacts of an increase to 12.5 per cent on fiscal year 2014 to 2015—secret Labor modelling: increase in the rate, increase in the base. The estimated price impact on a two-income household with no children was modelled at $93.90. Would the member for Watson stand at the dispatch box and tell the House what his view in Cabinet was when the impact on a two-income household with no children was $93.90 on every household. Did you discuss compensation arrangements in Cabinet? Did you raise compensation arrangements when you considered scenario 3 when you were in government? The impact on one income household with no children was $69.90 every single week. That is $70 a week, every week, on a one-income household with no children, every single week. Did you in Cabinet raise the fairness or the equity of $70 a week for a one-income household with no children when you and your government proposed an increase in the rate and an increase in the base to 12.5 per cent as part of scenario 3?
Mr Burke interjecting—
The member for Watson is saying they did not propose it and they deny it. I table scenario 3 so the Australian public can have a look at the modelling that was proposed by the then Labor government. Scenario 3 is now permanently in the record of the Australian parliament, as proposed by the then Labor government and the former shadow Treasurer.
The Labor Party comes in here today and says, 'What is the real price impact of the GST?' That is your matter of public importance for today. You know what the real price impact of the increase in the GST is. You know what the real price impact is, Member for Watson, because you modelled it.
What we do not know is what scenario 1 is or scenario 2 is. But you can bet your bottom dollar that 15 per cent figured in scenario 1 or scenario 2. If that is wrong, if I am making an outrageous slur on the member for Watson or the shadow Treasurer, they can come to the dispatch box and correct the record, because I would assert that scenario 1 or scenario 2 of the secret Labor modelling to increase the GST modelled a 15 per cent GST. That is my assertion in this House. Stand at this dispatch box after this and make a personal explanation if I am wrong, member for Watson. Get up and say, 'No, that is outrageous and I never modelled a 15 per cent GST—never, ever.'
It is absolutely pathetic for you to come here today and suggest that this government is doing something to the GST that any reasonable, rational government would not consider doing—looking at the tax mix. As the Prime Minister says day in and day out, in response to every one of these ridiculous questions from the Labor Party: no government would consider altering the GST in isolation. There is no Commonwealth government that would not consider the compensation arrangements for what is a generally regressive tax. There is no government that would not consider the income tax deductions needed to go hand in hand—well, maybe a Labor government. But no coalition government would not consider what other taxes had to be reduced so the overall tax burden came down.
But there is no doubt—and most Australians know—that future Commonwealth governments need to consider the tax mix in Australia. We need to continue to get the tax mix right. We need to control expenditure—absolutely. We need to get control in the growth of expenditure. But we also need to consider the tax mix to ensure that we have an efficient tax system that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. That is the genuine conversation that the Turnbull government is having with the Australian people. We are not closed to options. We are not ruling out the GST. The member for Watson today lectured us against the GST altogether. If you have never done anything to remove a GST at all, or have no idea how to replace that revenue, why would you waste this House's time today? Why would you come in here and lecture us about how bad and how wrong a GST is, especially when you were part of a government that modelled scenario 3 to increase the rate and the base to 12.5 per cent? Although, we do not know all of the details yet.
Finally, in rounding out this MPI which, of course, is a waste of this parliament's time, I just say to the member for Watson: please, do not come into this House and lecture us on housing affordability. Many people in here may not know, but I will never forget that you were a member of the Bob Carr state Labor government. It was the Bob Carr state Labor government that proposed that Sydney was full and that we should put green zones in my electorate and in all other electorates to slow down and stop development completely. That created the largest single bubble in housing in terms of supply and demand in Australia's history. It was deliberately manufactured and created by a state government. It has taken over a decade for the market to even slightly rebalance that decade of undersupply. It was deliberately created by his Labor government. He comes in here and says, 'I've discovered housing affordability. I feel for people who cannot afford their rents.' Well, when you were in the New South Wales Labor government, you could have stood up to Bob Carr and said, 'No, Sydney is not full, and we have something that we need to do about housing supply.'
This MPI is completely a waste of this parliament's time. It is the case that this government is, of course, going to— (Time expired)
Today, during question time and again now, we have heard the government, through the member for Mitchell, say very little about the importance of tax reform. But they have tried to defend their position on proposing the increase in GST by arguing that, because the Labor Party modelled the then opposition's position on the GST, somehow or another that was our position. That is clearly not the case. We never proposed an increase in the GST. It is very clearly not the case.
An honourable member interjecting—
I have just explained why we modelled it. Even a young person like you, member for Mitchell, might start to understand the realities of Australian politics and understand it is prudent to look at what the opposition proposes. It might well be that you actually do need to cost it and find out what it means for the budget.
What we have heard today from the member for Watson is that the government's own proposals would cost $123 billion. That is the total cost of this exercise on the budget. It would mean that they would be $63.5 billion out of pocket. That is what the black hole would be for them to pay for their compensation measures. Nothing will compensate the people of my electorate for the stupidity of proposing a 15 per cent GST—an increase in the GST by 50 per cent. I do not understand why any member of the National Party or any regional member in this House is not saying to the government, 'It's improper, inappropriate and bad news for us if you increase the GST on regional Australians.' Regional Australians are the poorest of Australians; they are sickest of Australians. They are the ones who will pay more as a result of an increase in GST on every aspect of their lives, and yet National Party members sit here and say nothing, except that they support it. Let's just say this: we understand precisely what they mean.
In my own electorate of Lingiari, where the poorest of Australians live, the NT government's Department of Health publishes the Market Basket Survey, which compares prices in each region of the Northern Territory with the prices in the major centres of Alice Springs and Darwin. For comparison, both the major supermarket price and the corner store price were used. The results are very sobering. The average cost of the food basket was $824 in remote communities, $726 in district centre corner stores and $558 in district centre supermarkets. If you add an extra 50 per cent for an increase in the GST, the average cost of the food basket would become $865 in remote stores, $762.30 in district centre corner stores and $585 in district centre supermarkets. That means, on average, a family living in a remote area of the NT—there are close to 200 remote communities across the NT—will be paying an extra $280 for the same basket of goods that would be purchased by their brothers and sisters in Darwin or Alice Springs. The difference would be even greater for those who live in Sydney or Melbourne. These are the people who suffer as a result of an increase in the GST to 15 per cent. These are the sickest of Australians.
We all know that the AMA and every other reputable health organisation in this country has said that we should not be contemplating an increase in the GST because of the health impacts. An increase in the GST by 50 per cent is a massive health tax. It is a tax on the health of every Australian, particularly those who live in the poorest communities and those who are the most vulnerable to illness. You do not have to be Einstein to work out where they are. As a former minister for Indigenous health, I can tell you. They are sickest of Australians. They need food security. They need to be able to buy good food at good prices. What we are seeing here is an exercise that would increase the likelihood that they would become sicker and would die earlier because they could not get access to good food as a result of this GST increase. That is the likelihood here.
Let's be very clear about it: this is not something which should be just brushed off. If you do not want to have this GST, if you are not going to increase the GST by 2½ per cent or five per cent, or whatever you might be going to do, say so. And for the Prime Minister to stand here in such an arrogant way as he did today—smug, arrogant and patronising: what he ought to do is take the Australian people into his confidence. If you do not intend to increase the GST, tell us now, and let's make sure we do not live with the pain of wondering how much it will be and what it will mean to those poor Australians living in remote and regional areas.
I have a bit of regard for Simon Crean—and you might wonder why I am starting my contribution in that way. Simon Crean, of course, is the former member for Hotham, and back in November 2003 he recorded the lowest percentage for popularity of Labor leaders in memory—14 per cent. The member for Maribyrnong, the current opposition leader, will, if he keeps going the way he is, actually go lower than that—pretty soon, probably in the next Newspoll.
He'll win the Gold Logie!
Well, I don't know whether it will be gold, but it will be some sort of Logie, some sort of award that he certainly will not want to receive. But Simon Crean at least stood for something. Simon Crean was somebody who actually understood regional Australia. Not many members opposite actually get regional Australia, but, I have to say, Mr Crean did. The opposition leader does not understand regional Australia. I fear that he does not actually stand for much at all, and that is such a shame. In 2015, this year of big ideas from Labor, what have we seen? Not too many big ideas. We have seen a proposition to put up the cigarette tax, but we have not seen too much else. The only proposition the opposition is putting forward is a result of the fact that in their own minds they feel that we are going to put up the GST.
We have not said we are going to put up the GST. The one thing that was not mentioned in question time today is '15 per cent'. In yesterday's question time, in the very first question, the member for Maribyrnong mentioned 15 per cent twice. In question three, the member for Maribyrnong talked about 15 per cent again. In question five the deputy opposition leader, soon to be opposition leader, the member for Sydney, talked about GST at 15 per cent—twice. Then in question seven, another contender for the position of leader of the Labor Party, the member for McMahon, also talked about a 15 per cent GST. So, there are six references to the GST being at 15 per cent.
Why wasn't there any reference to 15 per cent in today's question time? Why didn't we hear about that magical figure of 15 per cent? I can tell you why: it is because in today's Newspoll the opposition leader's popularity—or lack thereof—slipped to 15 per cent, the lowest since Simon Crean recorded 14 per cent popularity, or lack thereof, back in November 2003. And what happened at the end of November 2003? He left. He finished up. He resigned. And the member who is currently leading the Labor Party is also running very short of petrol. The only 15 per cent people are interested in today is Bill Shorten's lack of popularity.
But the member for McMahon came to the dispatch box and asked question after question about the sale of S. Kidman & Co. Well, that is interesting, given the fact that when he was the Treasurer of this nation he wanted absolutely nothing to do with the Archer Daniels Midland buyout proposal for GrainCorp, which sat on his desk for months and months. And, knowing full well that Labor was going to lose the 2013 election—and they did—he left it as a potential booby trap for the incoming Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney. But he did the right thing by this nation. He did the right thing in the national interest by rejecting that proposal by that American company—
Really?
The member for Griffith can yell out all she likes, but she does not understand the wheat belt areas of Australia. But we in the Nationals know full well, and our regional Liberal members know, that the grain industry does not need to be dictated to by a board in Illinois. And certainly when it came to S. Kidman & Co. the right decision was made, in the national interest, because we know that Kidman is Australia's largest private landowner and represents a significant proportion of Australia's total land area—approximately 1.3 per cent. We know that Australia's agricultural land is represented by Kidman at approximately 2½ per cent. We cannot afford to have that going to foreign interests. If Labor had their way, they would increase the foreign takeover threshold to $1 billion before it reached the Foreign Investment Review Board's threshold. Against the national interest? Labor is against the national interest.
Let me remind the member for Riverina that we are debating the real cost of increasing the GST. I did not hear him talking too much about the cost-of-living and GST increases in his contribution.
Proposed by the National Party.
Absolutely. Now, on the weekend I was speaking to a mother in my electorate. She is a working mother who works in the aged care sector. Her husband is a tradie and a subcontractor and they have three adult sons, all in the workforce. She raised with me two critical issues that she has been confronted with in recent times. The first was how difficult it is for her sons to get a job given what has happened in South Australia, thanks to the coalition government firstly destroying the South Australian economy by driving Holden out of South Australia and secondly procrastinating over the awarding of the submarine contracts. The second thing she talked to me about was the rising cost of living. She referred to the essential rising cost of living that she and her family are continuously confronted with. This is a matter that has been raised with me by people in my electorate on a regular basis, particularly those people who are genuinely at the lower-income end of society. It is not surprising that they are raising it with me, because they will be the worst affected if there is a GST increase, and they know that. And it is not surprising that they are affected by the rising cost of living, because if you look at recent figures the general cost of living has gone up by 29 per cent. For health and education it has gone up by above 60 per cent, and the cost of fruit and vegetables has gone up by more than 40 per cent.
Those are very simple figures that paint a picture of what people are being confronted with on a regular basis. You then have the other half of that equation, which is that those people who have work in South Australia at the moment are likely, like this woman's husband the tradie, to be working at lower rates. Overtime is non-existent for anyone who does have a job, or there is very little of it. Wage increases are minimal, and if you have kids at home who cannot get a job then that adds to your living costs at home. When you combine that with an increase in the GST you can understand why people are genuinely concerned about a GST increase on everything they have to buy and pay for in their daily lives.
The Prime Minister comes into this place and dances around the issue. He will not rule the GST in or out but simply keeps talking about things such as fairness. He does not define 'fairness', but he talks about compensating people that might be affected by the tax system, if it is to be changed. The Prime Minister has had plenty of opportunity to come into the House and clearly state whether he supports an increase in the GST or whether he does not, whether he supports increasing the base or whether he does not, or what he intends to do with it. It is no good talking about fairness by saying, 'We are going to compensate people for any possible GST rise.' The truth of the matter is that, if GST is added, it is done to increase government revenue. There is no purpose in raising the GST if it does not raise the total revenue for the government, because this is a government that does have a revenue problem. Therefore, no amount of compensation is going to fully offset or compensate for the increased tax that people will have to pay. Even if it is the people or businesses at the top end of society and the like, the reality is that they have no choice, ultimately, but to pass that increased tax on to the lower income people. Even worse, we know that part of the reason why the government wants to increase the GST is so that it can provide a lower rate of tax for companies in and around Australia.
We know full well that an increase in the GST not only will hit the most vulnerable people in our society but also will have direct negative effects on the health of the nation. The AMA president, the Rural Doctors Association president, the Public Health Association of Australia president, the Heart Foundation CEO—we have seen all of these people come out and be very critical about raising the GST, particularly because of the impacts it will have on health across the nation.
If time permits me to do so, I want to make one last point: it also adds to the complexity of people who run their small businesses, like the tradie who I referred to earlier on. They will, obviously, be hit with additional paperwork to deal with—taking time that they do not have—and face additional costs in order to manage their books. There is nothing fair about increasing or broadening the GST. The Prime Minister should stop dancing around the issue, as he has done today, and let the Australian people know exactly where he stands on this issue once and for all.
It is always a pleasure to stand in this place and talk about tax reform, because it is only members on this side of the House who are actually having a genuine debate about tax reform. The only idea of tax reform that those opposite have is to increase taxes. I would just like to reflect briefly on some of the comments made by those opposite in their contributions. I will start with the member for Watson, seeing as it was his MPI to begin with.
The member for Watson talked about the increase of the tax-free threshold to $18,000 and taking a million people out of the tax system. In reality, that is not quite correct. These people were moved from paying income tax to paying the carbon tax. That is why the tax-free threshold was increased to $18,000: not out of the goodness of the hearts of those opposite, but as compensation for paying a different type of tax. So they were still in the tax system. In addition—and what was far worse—those that were below the previous threshold of $6,000 went from paying no income tax to now also paying income tax. They slugged everybody with the carbon tax; they did not miss anybody. It was this government, members on this side of the House, who truly removed those one million people from the tax system by removing the carbon tax, to the benefit of all Australians.
But now we see, today, another bright idea from those opposite raised up the flagpole: the notion of increasing the cost of a packet of cigarettes from roughly $30 today to something like $40—an increase of some 33 per cent. It is interesting—and this applies to the member for Lingiari's contribution to this debate as well—to reflect on the increase in the cost of living. I agree with the member for Makin that the cost of living is an issue for many Australians, but the member for Lingiari might be interested to know that, according to the Department of Health and their latest tobacco key facts and figures, updated as of August this year, those living in remote communities, specifically Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, are 2½ times more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to smoke on a daily basis. So what is increasing the cost of a packet of cigarettes to $40 going to do for the people in those communities who are already struggling to make ends meet?
The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who smoke is around 32 per cent of the population. I think it is going to have a tremendous impact on their cost of living. It is interesting that the member for Lingiari purports to represent those communities, and yet I have not heard him say anything publicly against this proposed tax increase on cigarettes that would directly affect his community. People in remote communities are twice as likely to smoke daily as those in the major cities, and so, again, there is going to be a direct impact on those in his communities. In addition, people who live in the lowest socioeconomic areas—those who Labor purports to represent—are actually three times more likely to smoke daily than people in the highest socioeconomic areas.
Again we see, in the entire argument of those opposite, that they are not assisting the very people they purport to assist; they are actually going to hurt them more. In addition to that, they plan to sneak in a carbon tax again if they come into government.
It is only the coalition government, this side of the House, that is prepared to engage in a genuine debate about the important structural reforms that we need in our tax system to have an economy that can grow, provide jobs and be productive for the future of this country. We need economic growth to build this country for the future. That increases the tax revenue that the government receives. Therefore, we can continue to provide the services and facilities the Australian people expect our governments to provide. It is this side of the House that will provide that for this country, not those opposite.
The problem with the Turnbull government's plan to increase the GST is that it will push up the price of everything. If the Liberals increase the GST to 15 per cent, that will put even more pressure on households already finding it hard to make ends meet. That is why Labor will fight any attempts to increase the GST and to expand it to cover health, education, childcare fees and fresh food. Under the Liberals' plan for the increase to the GST, every single Australian would pay more. For families already struggling to keep their heads above water, that means their childcare fees, school fees, doctors' fees, electricity bills, gas bills, groceries and all other bills—which are already hard to pay—will go up. It will cost you more every time you go to the supermarket. It will cost you more every time you visit the doctor. It will cost you more every time your kids need new schoolbooks and uniforms, and every time the bill for school fees comes in.
Households are already finding it hard to make ends meet. Consumer group Choice has published research on the households who are doing it particularly tough. Renters and families with kids are included in the people who are feeling the squeeze. More than a third of the families in my electorate of Griffith have kids under 15, and nearly half the homes in my electorate are rentals. A GST on rent, child care, school fees and food, along with every other bill, will make it even harder for people to make ends meet.
Older Australians are under pressure too. With this government's attacks on retirement incomes—cutting the low-income superannuation contribution, freezing superannuation contributions, trying to cut the indexation of the pension and cutting the part pension by agreement with the Greens party—it is pretty clear that people over 50 should be very concerned about a tax increase that would increase the price of everything. A recent survey from the FiftyUp Club suggested nearly two-thirds of over-50s suffer stress in paying household bills.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
I care about the over-50s, Parliamentary Secretary—perhaps you ought to as well. Upping the GST would add to the stress that the over-50s already suffer. The GST is a regressive tax. That means raising it, or expanding it to cover things like food, education and health care, will hurt the families who can least afford it.
People on low and middle incomes will lose out with a higher or broader GST, compared with people on high incomes. The Australian Council of Social Service has released modelling indicating that, if the GST were increased to pay for personal income tax cuts, that would leave 64 per cent of people worse off. But people in the highest income households would actually be better off.
What would Menzies think? Here is a government that is from a party that used to care about the middle class. But this idea of upping the GST to make middle-class households pay more to fund tax cuts for the rich certainly would not have found favour with the party that Menzies founded, and it is certainly not something that ought to be supported in this parliament now. Asking middle-class households to pay for tax cuts for others is unjust. It fails the fairness test.
Putting a handbrake on spending fails the economic management test, too. Australia's small businesses, which create nearly half of all private sector jobs, rely on people spending money. Putting up prices at a time when wages growth is so slow that it is at record lows—the lowest wages growth we have had in this country since the wage price index began being kept in the 1990s—will be bad for this nation's small business owners, bad for their employees and bad for consumers. That is why Labor will not support Mr Turnbull's plans to raise the GST, because it will push up the price of everything and hurt the very families who can least afford it.
Deputy Speaker, I do not know what it is like in your household at Christmas, but I tell you what: in most households across Australia, people are thinking about prices right now. Think about this Christmas as being the last one without a 15 per cent GST on all the presents you have to buy for all your family members, the last Christmas without a GST on the fresh food that you buy to make Christmas lunch and the last Christmas where you are not looking at a return-to-school season with a 15 per cent GST on books, on pencils, on rulers—on all the things that kids need every year to go back to school. And, frankly, axing the schoolkids bonus is not going to help with that either. Think about this being the last Christmas that households are facing without having that 15 per cent GST on everything, which is exactly what those opposite want, what the Turnbull government wants. Why do you think this government is cutting $80 billion to the states' funding for health and education over the next decade? It is to put the pressure on the states in respect of the GST.
Despite the Prime Minister's cute games, saying, 'We don't have a plan,' or should that be, 'We don't have a plan but it's an excellent discussion—good idea, good idea,' and despite the Prime Minister's attempts to play coy on this, everyone in Australia knows that if this government gets its way then we will be paying more for everything every day of the week. It is wrong, and we will fight it every step of the way.
This afternoon's MPI in relation to the real cost of increasing the GST is very curious. There is intrigue around why the member for Watson is leading this debate, when the member for McMahon was sitting there watching, I must say, with some disdain. Why was he not up there leading the debate? The shadow Treasurer sat there with a look of disdain while the Manager of Opposition Business led the debate. Why would this be so? I think it is because, when it comes to Labor Party leadership, all options are open. They are happy to have a freewheeling discussion about that issue. As a matter of fact, we are starting to see little groups in the corridors, where they are having a very freewheeling discussion: 'What should we do with the member for Maribyrnong?' Well, we are not interested in the politics of the Labor leadership.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Wannon has the call.
No, let them yell, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let the shrill yells come from the other side. I am quite happy for it to occur. Let them have their discussions. I am obviously touching on a bit of a sensitive subject when I mention what is occurring on the other side. If they want to have a freewheeling discussion about leadership issues, fine. We want to talk about a very serious issue on this side—we want to talk about the taxation system. We want to talk about having a taxation system that will grow jobs and growth the economy. We know that we need to set up our economy so it will remain competitive in the 21st century. Sitting still and doing nothing will not deliver that. We need to look at the tax mix to see whether it will deliver us the type of economy, the type of jobs growth and the type of GDP growth that we need in a globalised world. And that is what we are doing.
What we are seeing is real economic leadership, and that leadership is not fearful of a campaign of fear about change. We are seeing real economic leadership, where everything is put on the table in the best interests of this nation. We want to see a tax mix so that not only the current generation will have an economy which sets us up in a globalised world, but our children and our grandchildren will also benefit from strong economic growth that comes from strong jobs growth. What does that mean? It means that you do not have a personal income tax system that shackles the economy and that shackles growth. It means a personal income tax system which can be compared to our near neighbours like New Zealand and other countries like Canada or the United Kingdom with which we compete.
When you look at our company tax rates and compare them with those of New Zealand, Canada and the UK, we are competitive. We want to set up our economy so that as Martin Parkinson said—and I think that Martin Parkinson served that side as well is he served our side—we have indirect taxes which help to produce a higher standard of living and not direct taxes which actually shackle our standard of living. That is what we are all about. Rather than looking at the reintroduction of the carbon tax or the mining tax, I would suggest that those on the other side look at other suggestions and alternatives. Rather than having your little conversations in the corridors about Mr 15 per cent, do some real work and have real discussions on real issues that matter to the mums and dads in this nation—and not only to the mums and dads, but to their kids and their grandkids. That is what our government is about—real economic leadership and real discussions on our tax mix.
For a bunch of old boys, it appears they have forgotten the first rules of debate. You have to have an opposition that asks questions and challenges policy that is being put forward. You would think that with all the private school education there is on the front bench, they would understand the first rules of debate. This government is the one that started the debate on GST. Look at the headlines that they created all on their own: 'Changes to the GST back on agenda', West Australian, 22 September 2015; 'Turnbull might take GST hike to next election', The Age, 17 September 2015; 'Rise in GST signalled for next election', Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September.
This government is now saying, 'No, we're not going to have a debate with the opposition. We can't possibly have a debate with the opposition.' Maybe they want to debate themselves. Maybe it is a standing-in-front-of-the-mirror exercise. Maybe the Prime Minister has been standing in front of the mirror and maybe there has been a bit of 'Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?' Maybe that is what the Prime Minister has been up to, because he will not answer a question in this place from the opposition, which is responsible for asking questions on core government policies. And this is one of those policies. Perhaps it is because his backbench has been quick in there to say, 'This is a stinker. This is a policy that will cost us our seats.' Perhaps the reason the government is now pretending that it did not raise the issue of the GST is that it is unpopular.
The mums and dads that the member for Wannon talks about know what it will cost them. Country electorates and regional electorates like mine are worried. They are concerned about the fact that this government has refused to rule out GST on their rents. Housing affordability is a real issue, and yet this government tries to say that it is a state responsibility. Well, rule out GST on rents then. This government has also refused to rule out GST on rates. Country electorates like mine have councils which have increased rates by 18 per cent over three years, and that is why the state Labor government is talking about rate capping. You can imagine the shock and horror of local governments when faced with rate capping, and now this government wants to increase the GST by five per cent so that any benefits of rate capping are lost. They are lost because this government wants to increase the GST, but it will not give that back to local government. No, the local government assistance grants are still frozen. The government has upset local government by failing to rule out GST on rates.
What about a GST on fresh food? You would think that the member for Wannon and all the other country MPs, particularly the national MPs, would be up in arms. How is this going to help the farm-gate prices? They keep saying over and over again that an increase in farm-gate prices is what will save this country. You whack 15 per cent on that, and you see whether people can afford their grocery bills when they go to the checkout. Now let us go to fuel. When John Howard was in government and introduced the GST, he said that we had to freeze the fuel excise because we were introducing a 10 per cent GST. What did this government try to do in its first budget? Increase fuel excise! Eventually, they got their wish: they have increased fuel excise and less than six months later they are talking about whacking another five per cent on to fuel. What does this government have against country people? We drive further in the region; we spend more on fuel because we drive further; and now we are going to have to pay more to this government in GST.
Then we get to schools. This government abolished the Schoolkids Bonus and it is introducing more and more cuts which they are pushing on the families by changing the family tax benefit. And now they want to increase the GST. Mums and dads know this government for what it is—it is only going after them. Those in the government are not going after their mates in business, they are not going after the big end of town's multinational tax avoidance; they are going after the hip pocket of mums and dads. Let's not forget about Christmas. This has to be one of the meanest governments to go after Christmas. Now the Christmas ham, the great Aussie prawns, the turkey and all the trimmings will go up as result of this government's plan to increase the GST.
In this most unscary scare campaign it is remarkable that the Labor Party is even thinking that Christmas is going to be cancelled. I do not know where the Grinch is but it must be every single one of those members on the other side. They are all about scare and bluster. You know they have nothing when they have to go to the point of saying Christmas is going to be cancelled. That is absolutely ridiculous. Every single member on this side knows that is ridiculous. Today we are talking about a very important issue. It is a genuine debate about our tax system. The Australian tax system has to be one of the most complicated internationally. Our companies compete internationally and bring business to Australia, and dealing with a very convoluted and complicated tax system hinders their ability to do business here in our country. We need an efficient tax system; we need a tax system that helps the Australian economy. Responsibly, we on this side want to debate this. We want to discuss how our tax system needs to be for the future. We would all like to see an efficient tax system that is going to help grow and boost the Australian economy. But, no, those on the other side do not want to have a productive conversation about tax—they just want to cancel Christmas. That is all they want to do.
Nobody likes to increase taxes, but the whole policy agenda of those on the other side is about increasing taxes. Labor want to bring back the carbon tax and supercharge it—this would again cost jobs. Labor want to bring back the mining tax, which will drive away investment and also cost jobs. Labor also want a multinationals tax—a tax policy that the Treasurer has said will cost jobs if ever it is implemented. Labor also want to rely on an old-style cigarette tax. Labor should release the costings on these things—if it is a health measure, what is the impact on the reduction in the number of smokers? Labor has even had secret modelling done on the GST. It is not like they have not been down this alley themselves to look at what it would all mean. Labor reviewed the tax system when they were in government—the Henry review. If you are going to have a full taxation review, all taxes should be on the table—the entire system should be on the table. But, no, they just omitted a few and at the end they cherry-picked new taxes they should add rather than providing proper, real reform to our taxation system.
I would ask Labor to come clean and reveal how they plan to raise the money to help our budget. They have no plans for these things—they have no plan at all. Even in my area they talk about infrastructure investment that they have no plans for—they do not even know where projects would go. For instance, we are building a plan for the south-west rail links that would come through from Leppington, through Lindsay and out to the north-west sector. We are having a comprehensive review of where these rail lines will go, what they need to cost and what the corridors will be. But, no, Labor do not have plans—they just go off, announce policy, shoot from the hip and have no idea where they are going. Then they apply more random taxes everywhere, not even thinking about how this is going to affect the efficiency of our taxation system.
The time for the discussion has concluded.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
First, I thank senators for their consideration of this bill. The bill is part of a broader package of tools that includes the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeover Fees Imposition Bill 2015 and the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015. Combined, these legislative changes will make an important contribution to strengthening the integrity of Australia's foreign investment framework, ensuring Australia maintains a welcoming environment for investment that is not contrary to our national interest. These reforms will ensure that from 1 December 2015 Australia's foreign investment framework is more modern, less complex and better targeted to changing demands and community expectations.
With this bill the government is implementing its commitment to increase scrutiny and transparency around foreign investment in agriculture, while also responding to concerns raised by the House Economics Committee. The committee noted that a lack of compliance and enforcement of residential real estate rules is undermining the overall integrity of the foreign investment framework. These changes will deliver a robust regulatory framework, increasing community confidence and providing a predictable and welcoming environment for investors.
The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 represents the most significant overhaul of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 since its introduction 40 years ago. It provides essential changes to simplify the system, strengthen the framework and guarantee that the rules are enforced. It introduces additional and stricter civil and criminal penalties to ensure foreign investors and intermediaries do not profit from breaking the rules. The accompanying transfer to the Australian Taxation Office of responsibility for regulating foreign investment in residential real estate will further enable stronger enforcement and audit and compliance with the existing rules.
The bill also enables the lowering of screening thresholds for investments in Australian agriculture; this will make sure that all significant investments in this sector are scrutinised. The bill now also includes a Senate amendment around foreign ownership of water entitlements. The bill includes a sunset clause applying to the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015, which commits the government to implement a register of water entitlements within 12 months. Establishing a register of water entitlements is consistent with the government's reforms to increase transparency around the legislation and foreign investment in agriculture, while ensuring the timely implementation of this important reform package.
I should reiterate that these changes are about welcoming essential foreign investment that is not contrary to our national interest—investment that strengthens Australia's economy, creates new jobs and unlocks innovation. With the passage of this bill, the government simultaneously fulfils our promise to protect our country's national interests while confirming that Australia does indeed remain 'open for business'. I commend all the amendments to the House.
We oppose these amendments because they are appalling policy. They represent a sell-out by the Liberal Party to the Greens and to the National Party. It is just as well the assistant minister wore his green tie today. This is selling out policy to the Greens and to the National Party, creating red tape and discouraging important investment in Australia. I know the assistant minister would not for a second believe in what he just moved. It would be an affront to his principles. I accept that the assistant minister has principles when it comes to economic management and this is an affront to them, as it would be to many Liberals and as it would be to the Minister for Trade and Investment, because it is bad policy.
What we see is the introduction and the escalation of discrimination in our foreign investment rules at the hands of this government. We see discrimination against countries which this government has decided should be treated differently from the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold for foreign investment in Australia that was instigated by the then Howard government. What this legislation does and what these amendments do is reduce the threshold for scrutiny for agricultural land from $252 million to just $15 million for investors from most countries, but not the United States, New Zealand and Chile. The government has to justify this discriminatory process against China and against other countries. What is different about foreign investment from some countries which makes it worthy of greater scrutiny compared to the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold?
The government also has to explain why agribusiness is so different to the rest of the economy. Why does agribusiness need a different threshold to financial services or telecommunications or manufacturing and other important areas of the economy? Agribusiness is a very important area of the economy, but is it really so different to those other sectors like telecommunications or the financial services sector that it requires a different regime? What is different about it? What is the government's justification for that? Well, the justification is that Barnaby Joyce is running this government's economic policy. We have seen it again and again. As former Prime Minister Keating said in a different context of a different person, I would not let him near a jam jar of five cent pieces when it comes to making economic policy. But we have this government, this Treasurer, who is happy to outsource policy to his cabinet colleague the Minister for Agriculture and, on this occasion, to do a deal with the Greens, and railing against doing deals on economic policy with the Greens and yet doing it in the Senate last night.
This is a set of propositions which has been appropriately condemned by the Business Council of Australia, by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by the Australian Industry Group, and by the Australian Food and Grocery Council—all have supported the principled position of the Labor Party. We get a lot of calls for greater bipartisanship for good economic reform. Well, this is one where the Labor Party will call out bad economic reform. In fact, this is not reform, because reform implies a positive change. This is a retrograde change. We will not have a bar of bipartisanship on this policy because it is bad policy, and we will call it out for what it is. I know that there are many members opposite, including many cabinet ministers, who agree with us on this proposal.
It is easy to play cheap politics on foreign investment. We can all go out there and run campaigns against foreign investment. What actually shows a bit of political courage is the Labor Party coming in and supporting good policy. We will not engage in the populist nonsense that the Minister for Agriculture is engaging in. We will not engage in the cheap, grubby deal-making with the National Party that this Treasurer, this Minister for Trade and Investment and this entire government are engaged in. The now Prime Minister has done deals with the National Party on an effects test and now he is also selling out to the National Party on this matter.
I will not accept for a second members opposite—who, just a few weeks ago, were railing about the China free trade agreement—coming in here and moving amendments which effect discrimination against the world's second largest economy and investment in China. We will not accept that. We will not accept being lectured to by this bunch who engage in these sorts of deals, these sorts of poor public policy outcomes, and this appalling process that we saw in the Senate through the deal between the National Party and the Greens last night. And the Treasurer is claiming, as this government does, that they are 'open for business'. What this shows is that that is rank nonsense and hypocrisy from the government. This is a government selling out their so-called pro-foreign investment credentials and selling out all their anti-red-tape agenda for this deal with the National Party and with the Greens. Well, we will not cop it. We will stand for good policy. We will recognise that it takes more than rhetoric to get foreign investment and more than just saying that that foreign investment is vital for Australia's capital needs, but actually putting in place the mechanisms to get it. We will support good policy over this rank hypocritical nonsense.
These are great amendments and they should be supported, but can I say: wouldn't it be nice if we could debate in this parliament and in the public about preserving the right to legislate to protect our water, our environment and our labour conditions without one side calling the other racist or xenophobic or discriminatory?
That is what happened when the Greens stood up here in this parliament and said, 'Perhaps it's not a great idea to enter into trade agreements that give away our right to regulate for the best interests of the Australian people and the environment because it might affect the profits of foreign corporations.' The government railed at that and said, 'You're being racist and xenophobic.'
But now, when we are arguing exactly the same point—namely, the right to look after our water and our farmland in this country—the tables have turned and Labor are calling the Liberals xenophobic and discriminatory. There is nothing at all discriminatory about this parliament passing laws that protect the environment, make sure that we have clean air, make sure that we have clean water and make sure that people are well looked after, and that is what these amendments do.
The Greens, for a very long time, have said there is something special about land and water. There is something special in particular about water, because without good water we cannot have good agriculture. In an era of climate change, when our water and our land are under threat and under pressure like we have never seen before, and we know that we are entering a century where, unless we get climate change under control, issues of food security are going to rise higher and higher on the national agenda and become issues of national security, it makes perfect sense to say, 'We want to know who owns the water that we all rely on, that every person in this country relies on.' That is what these amendments do. These amendments mean there will be now be a register of water interests around the country so that we know who owns the water in Australia. For Labor to come here and say that that is offensive is just plain, cheap politics and it is disingenuous.
It is also the case that these amendments have secured another important reform. We are now on the road to having water treated the same as other assets, so water might be subject to a further review process. The government has committed to looking at that. What is objectionable about that? What is objectionable about treating water in the way that we treat other resources—namely, it has to be subject to some kind of test? Most right-thinking people in this country would say, 'That is a very good thing. Let's have a test before we sell off our water.'
Other disingenuous comments have been made about why there are different levels. I am sure that the Labor Party knows full well that the problem with free trade agreements is that, once you have signed up to them, they restrict your ability to legislate in the future because you have to take into account past deals. As bad as they might be, you have to take those past deals into account. That is why the Greens, unlike Labor or the coalition, have said we should not be signing up to these free trade deals that in many respects trade away our sovereignty—because in the future, if you want to do things like this, if you want laws that mean we cannot sell off our water in this country without at least a register or some kind of test, then you will be forced to have different levels because of having signed up to these trade deals. That is why we should not do them in the first place. That is why we should not do them.
So I am thrilled that these amendments have been requested, because they give effect to a longstanding Greens principle that there should be a register of overseas ownership of water in this country. We would rather have had a lower threshold for the test, down to $5 million, but we were not able to secure that. However, the move to $15 million is good, and we are very, very excited that we are on the road to water now being subject to the same kind of test that other assets are subject to so that we can have a discussion about whether it is in our national interest to sell off the water that we all rely on.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: thirty-first report of the 44th Parliament.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 9 November to 12 November 2015 and legislative instruments received from 2 October to 29 October 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of two responses to matters raised in previous reports.
Nine new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and the committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents in relation to one bill and three legislative instruments. The committee has also concluded its examination of one bill and one instrument.
This mercifully short report considers one bill in detail—the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. While the vast majority of the bill, which is largely designed to reduce unnecessary red tape, raises no human rights concerns, there are two issues that, it is suggested, require further consideration from a human rights perspective. One relates to the removal of consultation requirements when making disability standards, which engages the rights of persons with disabilities. The other relates to removing a statutory requirement to have an independent review into the effectiveness of the Stronger Futures measures, which may affect the proportionality of any limitation on rights caused by these measures.
I note that the committee raised the same concerns in relation to these matters when the amendments were introduced as part of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. However, the committee's concerns were not reflected in the statement of compatibility for the bill. In order for the legislative scrutiny process to be effective, where the committee has previously commented on provisions in a bill, I would encourage all members to have regard to those comments when preparing the explanatory material for the legislation. It would help us if they voluntarily acquiesced and provided the information without us having to ask for it.
The committee has also considered three legislative instruments in this report which raise complex human rights issues. These instruments relate to implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution in relation to the misuse of cultural property from Iraq and Syria. The committee recognises the importance of complying with this resolution, and considers the objective of preventing terrorist groups from profiting from illegally removed cultural property is clearly a legitimate purpose for human rights law. However, the instruments make breach of the provisions subject to a term of up to 10 years imprisonment, and the report notes the drafting of the provisions is somewhat broad and imprecise. In simple terms, an offence provision that is insufficiently precise may—and I emphasise only may—offend the right not to be arbitrarily detained. The committee will therefore write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek her advice as to whether the offence provisions are sufficiently precise to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty in the context of Australia's international human rights obligations. But let me again emphasise the importance of this measure dealing with cultural property that may be expropriated and sold to fund terrorism. These are not unimportant questions.
As always, I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's 31st report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
I rise to continue talking on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. As I was saying earlier, before being interrupted by the 90 second members' statements, the number of Australians joining extremist groups is rising. The number of supporters of extremism and potential terrorists is rising. Despite our best efforts, the risk of a terrorist attack on home soil is rising. Now is the time to make sure we are doing all we can to preserve the safety of our citizens. Since 1945, 4.6 million people have become Australian citizens by conferral. In 2014-15 alone, we congratulated 136,000 people on becoming Australian citizens. Regardless of whether a person's Australian citizenship is due to birth in Australia or otherwise, it remains a privilege. It carries with it both rights and responsibilities. It gives you the rights to freedom of speech and religion, the right to equality, the right to a strong education and health system and the right to a welfare system, to name a few. It does not and will not give you the right to terrorise and impose fear.
Australia has long been a united and cohesive country built on a diversity of cultures, ethnicities and religions. It is something we pride ourselves on. In order to maintain this level of unity and cohesion, it is essential we continue to monitor, update and amend the way in which we deal with individuals and groups who threaten it. The counter-terrorism review released in February this year noted we, as a nation, have entered into a long-term era where the threat of terrorism is heightened, and the home-grown element of this is significant. As a government, we are committed to countering home-grown terrorism by investing in counter-terrorism capabilities and updating national security legislation such as the one we have before us today.
The bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and outlines the circumstances in which dual citizens' Australian citizenship can be revoked through their engagement with terrorism or terrorist organisations. Both the UK and Canada have similar acts in place. In 2014, the UK passed similar laws allowing them to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person in the case where that individual engaged in conduct or activity seen to be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the UK and they are able to gain citizenship elsewhere. Similarly, Canada passed legislation that came into effect earlier this year. Canada's laws now allow the citizenship and immigration minister to revoke citizenship of a dual national if they are convicted of a terrorism related offence.
For the benefit of the House, I would like to briefly explore the amendments being proposed. The amendment bill before us today details the terms through which the minister is able to class an individual as exempt from the operation of the bill and provides for monitoring and reporting on the bill's application. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on 24 June this year. The committee submitted its report, which included 27 recommendations for amendment to the original bill, on 4 September. The amendments in this bill are a direct response to the recommendations made by the committee.
Before going into the process for cessation of citizenship, I would like to explore the three elements of the amendment bill. The first deals with renunciation by conduct. It details that a citizen who is also a citizen of another country effectively renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. There are a number of points which expand on the definition of conduct that would lead to this, all of which include engaging in, providing, directing, recruiting or financing terrorism or a terrorist organisation. Australian dual citizens who choose to assist and promote organisations whose primary aim is to inflict evil and impose fear now do so knowing that their right to remain an Australian citizen will be removed. The amendments to section 33AA provide that the conduct provisions are limited to individuals who engaged in relevant conduct offshore or who engaged in relevant conduct onshore but left Australia before being charged and brought to trial.
The second element of this amendment bill is the expansion of the original provision relating to loss of citizenship. Since 1949, Australian law has provided for automatic loss of citizenship in the case that an Australian citizen chooses to serve in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. The amendments being proposed allow the same automatic loss of citizenship to occur to anyone choosing to serve and fight on behalf of a terrorist organisation. This would only apply to Australians with dual citizenship. The amendments follow all legal criteria, and terrorist organisations will be declared only when conforming to the Criminal Code. As we heard before, the member for Dawson said in his speech that it should also include a single state citizen who is eligible to hold citizenship in another country.
This amendment is of vital importance, effectively allowing the minister to assess and declare a terrorist organisation when it is directly or indirectly engaged in terrorism and is actively opposed to Australia's interests, values, beliefs and freedoms. Provisions have been made in this amendment to ensure the laws of this act do not apply to individuals under duress and forced to be in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. An important part of Australian law is its transparency and accountability—both of which ensure our freedoms as citizens are protected. I am glad to see that this amendment allows for any declaration of a terrorist organisation made by the minister to be open to review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is an example of how these amendments strive to deliver the best possible outcome for all parties involved and, again, to actively secure citizens' rights and safety.
I move now to the third section of the amendment bill—that is, conviction for terrorism and related offences. The addition to the bill, section 35A, provides the minister with the power of determination of citizenship status of an individual once convicted of a relevant offence and conforming to the criteria. The criteria for determination by the minister include, but are not limited to: the conduct through which the individual has repudiated their allegiance to Australia; the severity of their conduct; the degree of threat posed by the individual; Australia's current international relations; and the individual's connection to the country of which they also hold citizenship. The individual must also be sentenced to a minimum of six years imprisonment, as a whole or a number of periods totalling that time frame, for relevant offences such as treason, espionage and terrorism. Although the minister holds the power of determination, the minister is required by law to automatically revoke his or her determination in the case of the individual's conviction being overturned. Again, this highlights the government's commitment to provide individuals with a fair and just response to all accused.
In theory, these amendments are a strong improvement on the original bill, but the process of cessation of citizenship remains a critical aspect. Once the minister has received information from our intelligence or other associated agencies, the amended bill requires the individual to be given notice as soon as reasonably possible. Notice is required to include a description of the conduct leading to the decision and to inform the individual of their rights to have the decision reviewed. The only provision to this amendment is in the case where providing notice to the individual would fundamentally destabilise or weaken Australia's national security and defence. It also acts on the proviso that the minister, after making a determination not to give notice, should consider revocation of his decision no later than six months after making it and requires the minister to consider revocation of his determination at least every six months for a period of five years.
I note for the record that sections 33AA and 35, which I have just discussed, do not apply to any person working for, or under the direction of, an Australian intelligence or law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, in the current security climate, we must consider how to deal with minors linked to terrorist organisations. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, last month in Parramatta we saw a 15-year-old boy shoot and kill a police worker. Although acting alone, it is believed the shooter was politically and religiously motivated and, therefore, linked to terrorism. Then, not even two weeks later, in a separate case, a 12-year-old boy was named in a court control order as being at risk of radicalisation and under the influence of multiple extremists willing to commit acts of terror in the name of the Islamic State. The conduct provisions listed in the amendments will not apply to any minor under 14 years of age. I note none of the amendments, conduct or criminal, will apply to a minor under 10 years of age. When discussing the conviction provisions, a child aged between 10 and 14 years will only be criminally responsible if they are aware that their conduct is indeed against the law. However, the burden of proving this remains on the prosecution. Each individual case with minors will be unique and will need to be treated accordingly. In the case where a child is deemed criminally responsible and subsequently convicted of a terrorism related offence, the minister is required to give serious consideration to the age and best interests of the future of the child. A revocation of a parent's citizenship will have no impact on a minor's citizenship status.
A key amendment of this bill, which I think is very important for its functioning as a whole, is that which brings transparency and accountability. Every six months, the minister is required by law to report on the number of notices given and unsuccessfully given and a statement on the basis of each notice. It is also required by the minister to report any unsuccessful attempts to give a notice to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within 20 sitting days.
The amendments being proposed are essential. Despite our best efforts, terrorism remains at large. We as a nation need to continue to put the safety and security of this beautiful country at the top of our priority list. We have seen the devastation and heartbreak caused by terrorism. In our own backyard, we have seen lone actors commit terror related offences. This bill shows we are tough on terrorism. We will not stand idly by and watch our citizens fall victim to it. As I said before, being an Australian is a privilege. If an individual chooses to engage in terrorism related activity, they now do so knowing they forfeit their right to be an Australian citizen. I commend the minister and his department for their work in developing these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
Initially, I was not intending to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, but having listened to the contributions of members during much of the debate, I thought I might make a brief contribution to it myself. Before I do so, I acknowledge the presence in the House of the member for Isaacs, who I believe played a significant role in reshaping the original legislation, which would otherwise have been put before the House. I also believe that the legislation that we have before us right now is much better legislation because of the member for Isaacs. His personal contribution to the work of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and obviously his experience in law enabled us to come back to the House with legislation that now has the support of Labor.
In essence, this legislation is about Australian citizenship and the right of the government to take away the Australian citizenship of an individual with dual citizenship who has been convicted of a terrorism offence in Australia or of having engaged in terrorist activities overseas or collaborated with a declared terrorist organisation such as ISIS.
It is a sentiment that I believe has considerable support across the community. In my own discussions with people out there in my electorate when this legislation was originally mooted or proposed, the feedback I got was that it would be legislation that would be very widely supported throughout the electorate—albeit that at the time the detail was not out there.
I detected that it resonates particularly amongst early arrivals to Australia—that is, the post-World War II migrants who came to Australia immediately after World War II. I suspect that it resonates with them because, from my understanding of most of them, they were not demanding people when they came out here. They worked hard and they became loyal to a nation that welcomed them. They see that this is consistent with the loyalty that they showed to this nation in those early years after World War II.
I also note that there has been considerable criticism of the legislation by some sectors of the legal community. Some of the criticism that I have picked up on is worthy of consideration, I believe. I do not dismiss it and I believe that some of it is indeed arguable—in particular, issues relating to merit review, the appeals process that is available to people; the retrospectivity provisions; and the age of the person caught up by the provisions of this legislation all raise what I believe are fair and arguable legal matters.
What the legislation does do, however—and this is the point I want to focus on in my remarks on this legislation—is that it draws attention to citizenship and its relevance and place in today's society. Indeed, if nothing else, what this legislation has done in my view is to highlight the importance or otherwise of citizenship to today's society—not just here in Australia but indeed across the world. I recall discussing this legislation with a member of the British parliament only a year ago, before their legislation went through their house. He had similar concerns to those that were being raised in discussions that I was picking up on here in Australia. It is with that in mind that I want to focus my remarks.
Firstly, I note that there is no mention of citizenship in the Australian Constitution. I have not had time since I decided to speak on this legislation to do any research as to why that is the case. But I am a little surprised that there is no mention of the word 'citizenship' or reference to it in the Australian Constitution which, after all, forms the foundation of our laws in this country. Perhaps when I do have a little more time I might see if I can find out just why that is the case. Indeed, it was not until almost half a century later that citizenship became available in Australia under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. That in itself is interesting, that it took us half a century before we as a nation acknowledged that perhaps we ought to have a provision whereby people who come to this country could become Australian citizens if they were not born here.
Since the 1948 act came into effect there have been some reviews of citizenship in this country and there have been some changes made to it. The point I want to make about that is this: much has been said about the importance of citizenship by many of the speakers who have contributed to this debate. By doing so, they have endeavoured to highlight the significance of citizenship and, in turn, by highlighting the importance of citizenship the perception is created that this legislation imposes a very severe penalty on those who offend, and that drastic action is being taken by the government of the day.
I am not so sure about that. Indeed, my view is that anyone who is prepared to risk their life and do what some of these offenders are doing is probably not going to consider whether they lose their citizenship and if that will determine which direction they are going to take and what they are going to do. Indeed, my view is that this legislation probably will not stop too many people or deter too many people who are contemplating joining an extremist group. But, having said that, I guess time will tell. I do not have a crystal ball, and that is just a personal view that I have.
But I want to make three observations in respect of citizenship. Firstly, this legislation does create two classes of citizens: that is, those who have dual citizenship and those who have Australian citizenship only. The fact that this legislation can only apply to dual citizens does that. It is my view that we have always had two classes of citizenship because we have allowed dual citizenship in this country, as have many others.
Dual citizenship has never sat comfortably with me. My view has always been that ultimately a person should choose which country their prime allegiance will be to, if they have to make that choice. I note that not all countries allow dual citizenship. I have a list of those that I understand do not, but I do not want to go through those. But I do note that not all countries allow dual citizenship. It seems to have been a trend more so in recent years, including here in Australia, in order to accommodate the globalisation that we have seen around the world.
The second observation I make is this: currently in Australia we have somewhere between four and five million dual citizens. I do not know what the exact figures are because they are not available, but at best estimates they are between four and five million. Those numbers speak for themselves, and people can make what they want of those numbers. The third observation I would make is this: since World War II around 7.5 million people have migrated to Australia. Somewhere in the order of five to 5½ or six million have become Australian citizens. Again, I do not have the actual numbers but from the best estimates of what I could put together it is somewhere between five and six million
Conversely, somewhere between 1½ and two million Australian residents have to date chosen not to become Australian citizens, even though they are eligible to do so. Again, those numbers speak for themselves—1½ to two million people have permanent residency in this country and for reasons known only to themselves have chosen not to apply to become Australian citizens. In other words, just how important is Australian citizenship to people in today's day and age? With between four to five million who are dual citizens and another 1½ to two million who are non-citizens and yet permanent residents, it really does beg the question: just how important is citizenship in the minds of people in today's society?
I just want to briefly turn to a few other matters that have also been raised. Firstly, there is the matter of the perhaps unconstitutionality of the legislation. Ultimately, that will be a matter that will be determined by the High Court of Australia. I do not offer a view about that. What I do envisage, however, is that there will be many drawn-out court challenges over the rights of spouses and children whose parents may have had their citizenship revoked under this legislation. What is the right of the child? What is the right of the spouse? Indeed, what happens to the assets of a person who is caught up by this legislation and who perhaps has substantial assets in this country? Who do they go to, particularly if that person has no family? I do not know. Those are the sorts of things I believe may well be matters that will arise in the future.
But I have also had some problem trying to understand how this legislation will deal with another matter. That is the question of a person who has permanent residency in this country. Let us assume that a person with permanent residency leaves Australia, has a visa to return to Australia in their hand at the time they leave and is then caught up by this legislation. Who makes the determination about that person's re-entry into Australia? That person is not a citizen. That person may simply be a permanent resident. Again, I do not know. What I do know is that, under current law, that person's re-entry would be assessed by the minister. Yet, in this legislation, there is an attempt to remove the minister's direct involvement in the process of re-entry for an Australian citizen. Again, I do not know how those kinds of differences will be dealt with. My view is that some of the people who may well be attracted to go overseas and do the wrong thing may well be people who are permanent residents but not necessarily Australian citizens. Again, perhaps that is food for thought for the minister and the government of the day that is introducing the legislation.
Having expressed those concerns, I accept that the legislation has been put together after considerable scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I accept that the legislation that we have before the House today is much better than it otherwise would have been. I believe that it will be a matter of time before we can truly assess how well it has worked or, indeed, has not worked. I go back to my earlier comments on this. I believe there is an expectation from people around the country that Australia act in some way to try to deter people from joining extremist groups. If this legislation does that, it will have served its purpose. But only time will tell.
Today I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This bill, above all else, is about ensuring the safety of all Australians, including those I represent in Macarthur. Put simply, this bill ensures that terrorists convicted here in Australia can be removed and dual nationals committing terrorist atrocities overseas cannot return to Australian soil. The government believe that taking away a person's citizenship is the appropriate action to reduce the possibility of them taking part in conduct that could harm Australians or Australian interests. We believe that a person who chooses to be part of a terrorist organisation is demonstrating an ultimate rejection of their allegiance to Australia.
Residents in my electorate know that Australian citizenship is something to be treasured. Every month I witness hundreds of locals becoming Australian citizens in special ceremonies across Campbelltown, Camden, Wollondilly and Liverpool councils. It is something that is highly valued in my community and an honour for those becoming citizens and their families. By becoming Australian citizens, those residents in Macarthur are making a strong commitment to this country, its people and the democratic rights and privileges that come with being an Australian citizen. In my 20 years on Campbelltown Council and my time as the member for Macarthur I have been to hundreds of these ceremonies, and I can tell you the decision to become an Australian citizen is held in very high regard in my community and is not something that is taken lightly. Macarthur has a rich migrant history, one that we are very proud of. My community has embraced families from all over the world, and we celebrate those who make the decision to make Macarthur their new home and become Australian citizens.
Dual citizens are highly respected and valued in our community and can be found teaching in our local schools, working in local hospitals and universities, studying at the University of Western Sydney medical campus, working tirelessly in our disability sector and as the owners of many successful small businesses in my electorate. These are good, hardworking people who respect and embrace the rights and responsibilities that come with being an Australian citizen.
The people of Macarthur understand and appreciate the responsibility of this parliament to ensure the safety of our nation and to protect its citizens. The majority of people I have spoken to understand why these laws need to be changed to respond to the emerging threat of terrorism in this country and around the world. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that terrorists who are dual nationals are prevented from returning to Australia. It is also our responsibility to ensure dual nationals who engage in terrorism on Australian soil can be removed where possible. As stated by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the intention of this bill is to ensure the protection of the Australian community and the upholding of its values, rather than punishing people for terrorist or hostile acts.
Currently under the Citizenship Act a conviction for a specified offence is required before a person's citizenship can be revoked. The power to revoke only arises if the offence was committed prior to the minister giving the approval for the citizenship application or the offence was committed in relation to the person's application to become an Australian citizen. These existing revocation powers are inadequate to address concerns in regards to persons who have acted contrary to their allegiance to Australia through their engagement in terrorism related conduct.
Sadly, the world has become a very different place to the one we once knew. Recently, we have watched on in horror as innocent people have lost their lives under the most horrific circumstances both here in Australia and abroad. Australians now face a heightened and complex security environment and it is a sad fact that some of the most imminent threats to the security of our nation and the safety of the Australian people come from citizens engaged in terrorism.
The Review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery for a safer Australia, published in January this year, states that the threat of terrorism in Australia is rising and is becoming harder to combat. The document also states that there is an increasing number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas; there is an increasing number of potential terrorist supporters and sympathisers in our community; there is now an intergenerational dimension, with the families of known terrorists increasingly radicalised and involved; the international forces driving terrorist ideology and capabilities are stronger; and extremist narratives have increasing appeal in the Australian community. These alarming facts are just some of the reasons why it has become the responsibility of this parliament to change these laws and respond to current threats. The world has changed, so our laws should change accordingly.
I believe that this bill highlights the rights and responsibilities that come with dual citizenship. Those who do not respect these rights and responsibilities and choose to take part in conduct that is incompatible with the safety and values of the Australian people will be affected by this bill and the amendments. The bill ensures that terrorists convicted here in Australia can be removed and dual nationals who have committed terrorist atrocities overseas cannot come back.
Many stakeholders were consulted on the measures in this bill, including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force. A range of organisations and individuals also provided submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry. I would like to thank this bipartisan committee and its chair, the member for Wannon, for the hard work on its report, which made 27 recommendations for amendments to the bill and the explanatory memorandum. I also welcome the member for Makin's comments in relation to the member for Isaacs' significant contribution. The committee recommended that this legislation be passed, and stated at the end of its report:
The Committee supports the policy intention of the Bill to help protect the community from persons who have clearly renounced their allegiance to Australia by engaging in serious terrorism-related acts that harm Australians or Australian interests.
Ultimately this bill will help strengthen our ability to counter home-grown terrorist activity and make our communities safer.
This bill applies to dual citizens regardless of how a person became an Australian citizen, including a person who is an Australian citizen by birth. It only applies to dual citizens who are nationals or citizens of a country other than Australia, so they will not be rendered stateless if their Australian citizenship were to cease. The bill provides three ways in which a person who is a national or a citizen of a country other than Australia can cease to be an Australian citizen. These include renunciation by conduct under proposed section 33AA, service outside Australia in the armed forces of an enemy country or a declared terrorist organisation, and conviction for terrorism offences and certain other terrorist-related offences.
As part of this bill, a person who is aged 14 years or older who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia will renounce their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist-related conduct. Terrorist-related conduct includes engaging in international terrorist activities, using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism or a terrorist; or engaging in foreign invasions and recruitment. A person who renounces their Australian citizenship under this section will cease to be an Australian citizen immediately they engage in such conduct. Also, as part of this bill, those who serve in the armed forces of an enemy country or declared terrorist organisation will also be stripped of their citizenship. This will take place immediately a person begins to serve in the armed forces or fights as part of a declared terrorist organisation.
It is important to note that a person will not be considered part of a declared terrorist organisation if their actions are unintentional, they are acting under duress or force, or they are providing neutral and independent humanitarian assistance. Also, before the minister declares an organisation to be a terrorist organisation, the organisation must be listed by the Australian government under the Criminal Code regulations. The minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering a terrorist act, or that it supports a terrorist act and is opposed to Australia or Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties. If a person were to be in the service of such an organisation, they would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. A declaration by the minister of a declared terrorist organisation is also reviewable by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The conduct provisions outlined in the bill do not apply to Australian law enforcement or intelligence bodies, or the Australian Defence Force in the proper performance of the functions of those organisations.
As part of these amendments the minister may also determine in writing that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they have been convicted of a specified terrorist-related offence and the person is sentenced to at least six years imprisonment. Before the minister can make this determination, he or she must be satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction relates demonstrates that the person has rejected their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. The minister must also take into account the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction or sentence, the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community, the person's connection to the other country that they are a citizen of and their rights in that country, Australia's international relations and any other matters of public interest. The age of the person will also be taken into account, with the best interests of a child under 18 being a primary consideration. No part of the bill applies to a child aged less than 10 years. The conduct based provisions of the bill also do not apply to conduct by a child aged over 10 years and under the age of 14 years. In relation to the conviction based provisions of the bill, a child over the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years can only be criminally responsible for an offence if the child knows that his or her conduct is wrong.
As part of this bill, notice will be given to the person losing their citizenship as soon as practicably possible, except where the minister believes that giving notice could affect the security, defence or international relations of Australia. In this case the minister will have regard to the severity of the matter, the degree of the threat this person poses to the Australian community, the person's age, the likelihood of persecution, the person's connection to the other country of which they are a citizen and their rights in that country, and Australia's international relations. This bill also prevents a person from reobtaining Australian citizenship unless the minister revokes the notice, or the loss of citizenship is overturned by a court. In such cases it will be as if the person had never lost their citizenship in the first place.
This bill is an important aspect of this government's multifaceted approach to threats to national security. We recognise that Australia is not exempt from the emerging threat of terrorism that we have seen in recent weeks across the globe. We are working closely with the Australian Federal Police and the state and territory police forces to ensure the safety of all Australians. Counter-terrorism units have prevented several potential terrorist attacks on Australia in recent times. The New South Wales police have also upgraded their response policy to 'shoot first' from 'contain and negotiate'.
I was in the New South Wales Police Force for nearly 25 years. While I understand the daily risks taken by men and women in our police force, I cannot comprehend the new risks that these brave men and women must face with the emerging terror threat in our country. It is important that this parliament does everything that it can to not only support the police force in their battle on the ground against terror but also update our laws and legislation, to stop those involved in these horrific acts and protect our communities. We must modernise our current laws to recognise that threats to our country and democratic values are no longer just from other nation states. These new powers will apply to dual citizens who fight on behalf of, or are in the service of, groups such as ISIL and Daesh.
It is so important to reiterate that this bill, more than anything, is about making the Australian community safer. It achieves that by ensuring that terrorists convicted here can be removed and that dual nationals committing terrorist atrocities overseas cannot come back. To be a citizen of this country is a privilege not a right. The explanatory memorandum for this bill states that:
Australia's values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties are the uniting characteristics for Australian citizenship. These characteristics are expressly included in the pledge of commitment as citizen of Australia. Therefore, where a person fights with a terrorist organisation that is opposed to Australia or to any of Australia's values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties, the person has evidently repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I stand here today—because the people of Macarthur and the people of Australia need a government that will take responsibility for their safety. We must ensure that our laws and legislation change to keep up with the risks and changes happening in the world today.
I am deeply saddened whenever I hear the news of terrorist attacks on innocent human lives. I would like to extend my condolences to all who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorism in this country and overseas. The people of Macarthur stand united in their prayers for humanity and their prayers for peace. They do not want to see any more lives lost at the hands of these terrorists and neither do I. That is why the work of this government, our law enforcement agencies and the Australian Defence Force is more important than ever to stop such atrocities on Australian soil and to ensure a safe environment for our communities.
I have two lovely daughters. I hope that one day soon I will have some grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a country that is safe from the threat of terrorism and the barbaric actions of these terrorist organisations. I know that there are many individuals and families across Macarthur who feel the same way. Now more than ever we need action; we need to do everything in our power to protect our communities and the Australian way of life. That is why I stand here today and commend this bill to the House.
It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Just 11 days ago, we saw the most shocking of attacks on innocent civilians in Paris—the dreaded Friday the 13th. One hundred and thirty people died at the hands of terrorists and many more have been critically injured and are in a critical or serious condition in hospital. The horror of this tragedy is overwhelming; let us not forget that it is the latest in a series of terrible terrorism attacks. The sheer brutality and the coordination of these attacks have, I think it is fair to say, left every Australian, and nations around the world, in utter shock.
A couple of days after the event, in Geelong I worked with other members of the local community to organise a candlelight vigil to honour those who had died and to send a signal to our region and Australia that in Geelong and Corangamite we deeply care about what had happened. It was a multifaith service. I was joined by members of the Anglican and Wesley churches and also by Mohammad Ramzan, who is the imam of the Geelong mosque. Together, all members of the clergy spoke with great unison condemning these dreadful attacks, and I was very proud to call myself a member of the Corangamite community on this occasion, joined by a number of community leaders, including the member for Corio.
There is no doubt that, as a nation, we have moved quickly to combat the rising risk of terrorism. I want to reflect very briefly on the words of the imam, who spoke with incredible force in his condemnation of Daesh or ISIS. He reminded everyone there that Daesh has also killed half a million Muslims. I have to say that his condemnation was complete and he spoke with great conviction about what had occurred. He is a great member of our community and a very fine example of a Muslim man in our community who is speaking out in utter condemnation against what is occurring by this absolute horror—this death cult—that we are seeing at work all around the world.
This bill is an important part of the response to the heightened increase of terrorism. Australia citizenship involves fundamental responsibilities. Our values unite all Australians while respecting their diversity. The bill provides explicit powers for the cessation of Australian citizenship where a dual citizen engages in support of terrorism. We have seen a number of instances where Australian citizens have been involved in terrorist-related conduct, including some very dramatic recent incidents. What we have with this bill is a bill which revokes Australian citizenship for those dual citizens who fight for a declared terrorist organisation. Being an Australian citizen is not a right but a privilege, and this bill recognises that. As the bill states:
… Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
The new powers in this bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat. As we have heard in this debate, since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to high, there have been some 26 people who have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism-related charges since 2001, so we are seeing an increasing number of Australians joining extremist groups. We are seeing known sympathisers and supporters of this extremist terrorist activity increasing, and we are also seeing the number of potential terrorists rising. It is pretty horrifying to consider that 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. Around 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are seeking to travel. With the elevation of the terrorism threat in Australia we need to do everything we can as a government to ensure that Australians are safe and that we do everything that we can to keep our community safe.
This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause which sets out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based. It outlines the circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism-related activities. It outlines the circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill. It provides for reporting on and monitoring of the operation of the arrangements in the bill. It provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring, and it also includes a number of related matters.
The bill applies to a person who is a dual national regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth. There is no discrimination. The object of the bill is clear. We will not, as a nation, tolerate Australian citizens who are dual citizens engaging in this sort of activity—they will be stripped of their citizenship.
I want to commend the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I know has worked very hard in a bipartisan way. The committee made 27 recommendations for amendments. In response to the recommendations, government amendments to the bill are proposed and an explanatory memorandum is provided. I want to briefly mention the elements of the bill. Section 33AA provides that:
… a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if the person acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in conduct specified in subsection (2).
The relevant conduct is:
(a) engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices;
(b) engaging in a terrorist act;
(c) providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act
(d) directing the activities of a terrorist organisation;
(e) recruiting for a terrorist organisation;
(f) financing terrorism;
(g) financing a terrorist;
(h) engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.
Another key element of the bill is that the law has provided for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. That has been in force since 1949. What this bill does is to expand the section to provide for automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country, is overseas and
… fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation …
So there is a fundamental basis on which this bill sits, in that we already have in the law an automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. A declared terrorist organisation will be a subset of those which are listed for the purposes of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code.
The bill provides that the minister, by legislative instrument, may declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section, where the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, or advocates the doing of a terrorist act, and where the terrorist organisation is opposed to Australia or Australia's interests, its democratic beliefs, its rights and its liberties. This bill will very comprehensively attack the very heart of those who seek not just to undermine Australian values, our great country and everything that we stand for, but to destroy the fabric of our nation.
Another key element is section 35A. Section 35A provides a power for the minister to determine a person's citizenship has been lost once they have been convicted of a relevant offence, and upon consideration of relevant criteria. Following the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism-related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Offences of incursions into foreign states with intention of engaging in hostile activities have also been included through these amendments. This replicates provisions under the repealed Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 and is important in ensuring that the bill is as effective as possible, given the activities of terrorists overseas. To be considered under this section, a person must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment or to periods of imprisonment that total at least six years.
A key element of the consideration by the minister is that the minister must be satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction or convictions relates demonstrates that the person has 'repudiated their allegiance to Australia'. And that is what this bill is all about. This goes to the heart of those who repudiate their allegiance to Australia by seeking to destroy the fabric of our society.
The minister must have regard to a range of factors: the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction, the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community, the age of the person, the person's connection to the other country of which the person is a national or citizen, Australia's international relations, and any other matters of public interest. So the bill is very comprehensive in ensuring that the minister considers all relevant matters before making a decision to strip citizenship from a dual national.
This is a very important part of the government's response to the terrorism threat. We have seen some terrible incidents here—the terrible shooting at the Lindt cafe in Sydney recently. I have to say that I am very proud to be an Australian. I am very proud to be part of a government which values Australian citizenship so much and which is doing so much as a leader in this world to attack terrorism. ISIS, or Daesh, wants us to be afraid. As a member of my own community who stood at the candlelit vigil, I can say that we stood there in defiance. We will not be afraid. We will calmly and rationally deal with this threat. We will take on the dreaded scourge of ISIS. We are determined to do whatever we can to destroy this terrible threat to our freedom and to our nation and nations around the world. It is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
On 29 October I attended a citizenship ceremony hosted by Cairns Regional Council, where 83 people officially received their Australian citizenship. As someone who, like many others, takes their own citizenship as a given, it was an inspiring experience. From all around the world the new migrants came—a total of 20 countries—from Argentina to the Philippines, Ireland to Laos, New Zealand to France. Individuals, couples and families stood at the front of the room with a look of pride and achievement on their faces, dressed in formal suits, colourful national dress or the more casual attire of their newly adopted country. They beamed as they received their certificates and shook hands with the deputy mayor for the cameras.
I also visited our Australian service men and women on rotation in the Middle East earlier this year. In extreme temperatures and gruelling conditions, against a foe whose barbarianism is to be feared, they put their lives on the line every day for their country. They flew eight- to 12-hour sorties into enemy territory, refuelling mid-air multiple times, knowing that, if they went down, they would be in the hands of a brutal force.
When I asked them, 'Do you think Australia should be here? Do you agree with what we are doing and the values we are fighting for?' their emphatic answer, as young men and women in the service of their country, was absolutely 'yes'. I could not help but contrast these situations with the shooting of police accountant Curtis Cheng by a 15-year-old as Mr Cheng left work for the day to head home to his family; or the stabbing of two counter-terrorism officers in Melbourne by an 18-year-old whose passport had been cancelled because of fears he would join Daesh; or the holding of 18 people in the Lindt cafe in Sydney as a crazed hostage-taker played cat and mouse with their lives, resulting in two deaths; or the luring of Melbourne teenager Jake Bilardi to extremism, courting him to travel to Syria and fight with—and eventually die with—ISIL. Do the actions of these perpetrators, themselves Australian citizens, bear any commonality with the values held by the new citizens in Cairns or the members of our Defence Force? No they do not, and that is why we are here.
The reality is that the Australian social landscape is changing and the terrorist threat is rising. The number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing; the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing; and the number of potential terrorists is certainly rising. Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since early 2014. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. About 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria/Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are trying to travel there themselves.
The bill we are debating today states:
… the Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
We announced our plans earlier this year to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the loss of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conduct. Supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, a bond that should unite all citizens. These new powers in the bill are, I believe, a highly necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat.
It is important to note that we already have the ability to cancel a person's citizenship if a dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. What we are doing now is updating our laws so that they better reflect current threats to our country and our values through terrorism related activity. The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth.
I am pleased that the bill has been thoroughly scrutinised since the amendments were proposed. The parliamentary joint committee for intelligence and security reported back in September with 27 recommendations, which have been taken into account. The list of conducts that will lead to a person losing their Australian citizenship is comprehensive: it includes engaging in international terrorism activities, using explosive or lethal devices, engaging in an act of terrorism, providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in or assistance in a terrorist act, directing the activities of terrorist organisation, recruiting for terrorist organisations, financing terrorism or financing a terrorist and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. These may be carried out offshore or in Australia, where the person has then fled the country before being charged. The actions must also be carried out with specific intention, which could be to advance a political, religious or ideological cause or to support, promote or engage in a hostile activity in another country or it could be on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation.
Since 1949 we have been able to cancel someone's citizenship if they fight on the side of the country that is at war with Australia. Now the bill extends the right to cancel somebody's Australian citizenship if they are also a citizen of another country, are overseas and fight for, or are in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. A terrorist organisation becomes 'declared' when it is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act or advocates the doing of a terrorist act and is opposed to Australia or to Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties, so that if a person were to fight for, or be in the service of, such an organisation the person would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia.
There are safeguards in place, because we are dealing with a highly complex situation. People will not be deemed to be in the service of a declared terrorist organisation if their actions are not intentional or if they are forced to do them under duress or if they are doing them for the purposes of independent humanitarian assistance. They also cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked if it would render them stateless, in keeping with Australia's international obligations.
Following the recommendations of the PJCIS, the list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. It has also been extended to include offences by people who travel to foreign countries with the intention of engaging in hostile activities. This is important, as we need to make sure the bill is as effective as possible, given the activities of terrorists overseas and the actions that we have seen taken by Australians who have travelled overseas to fight.
To be considered under section 35A, a person must be sentenced to at least six years' imprisonment for treason, espionage, terrorism, international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices, treachery, sabotage and foreign incursions and recruitment. The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time a determination is made by the minister. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies operate with professionalism, thoroughness and integrity. It is these agencies that will provide the minister with information relating to a person's conduct or conviction. Again, there is a set process and time frame as to how someone's cancellation of citizenship can happen. The minister must consider a number of factors, such as the severity of the actions, the degree of threat posed to the Australian community, the person's age and their connection to the other country of citizenship. If a decision to revoke citizenship is made, then there is of course capacity for a judicial review. If this is successful and a person loses their citizenship under the bill, they cannot get it back again unless the minister revokes the notice or the loss of citizenship is overturned by a court or the declaration of a terrorist organisation is disallowed by the parliament. In such cases, it is as if the person never lost their citizenship in the first place.
For people who are found to be still in Australia when they lose their Australian citizenship, the process of actually returning them to the country of their other nationality or citizenship would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is already done regularly with people who have had visas cancelled, including permanent visa holders who may have been here for a significant amount of time. The amended bill makes sure that people who are carrying out conduct because of their role with Australian law enforcement or intelligence agencies are not impacted. In addition, no part of the amended bill will apply to a child aged under 10 years, and the conduct based provisions of the bill will not apply to a child under 14. The minister must take the age and the best interests of a child into account when considering whether to revoke citizenship following conviction. The bill will also not allow the minister to revoke a child's citizenship following revocation of a parent's citizenship.
Every six months, the minister must table in each house of the parliament a report that sets out: the number of notices given by the minister; the number of notices the minister unsuccessfully attempted to give; and for each notice given or attempted to be given, there must be a brief statement of the matters that are the basis for the notice. This will help to ensure accountability and transparency in the process.
Australia is not acting alone internationally in taking these steps to remove citizenship. In 2014 the UK passed legislation which expanded the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. Canada has also recently passed legislation expanding the basis on which citizenship may be revoked and the process by which this may happen. On November 11 we commemorated Remembrance Day and paid tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in all wars and armed conflicts. It is timely that we debate this legislation which will reinforce the value of Australian citizenship. This bill provides our agencies and authorities with appropriate measures to penalise people who treat their Australian citizenship with contempt. These are people who enjoy the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship, including freedom of speech and the ability to travel to many countries, yet who actively speak out or fight against the very system that has enabled these freedoms. It clearly does not make sense to allow these people to continue to remain a part of our society. It is important that we send a very strong message to those individuals who are contemplating these sorts of actions that they are not welcome—that is not part of who we are in this country—and if they take these actions there will be very serious and lasting consequences. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The recent terrorism events in Australia and overseas have made these changes obvious and necessary. I do not think anyone can fault the logic of the intent behind this bill. For those who were born here, Australian citizenship is treasured. Those of us who have come from another country have been welcomed with open arms—and that has been the case for more than a century. Since World War II we have accepted over 850,000 refugees from around the world, and we have resettled them—we have not just offered temporary refuge like countries in Europe have done; we have resettled them. The vast majority of these people have flourished in Australia, because we have rule of law, freedom of association and movement, freedom of speech and a liberal democracy with all the traditions and institutions that make liberal democracies strong. That is what many of the people who have come here and taken up Australian citizenship have been attracted to. It is the ultimate act of contempt, and in fact treason, if someone undertakes terrorism against Australian citizens while being a citizen themselves.
The intent of this legislation is not to render people stateless. There are various special subsections which define new terrorism conduct, and if you engage in this conduct you will lose your Australian citizenship if you retain citizenship of another country. Basically, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot treat the nation and the privileges you have been given with contempt yet at the same time expect to stay here and be welcomed. Many of the people who have committed serious terrorism fit that description. In fact, other nations have been faster to realise this and have acted on it appropriately—the UK, for instance, and I understand Canada, according to the member for Leichhardt. It seems reasonable that if someone is not owing allegiance and is in fact battling against Australia, either on our shores or overseas for ISIS or al-Qaeda or any of the terrorist groups around the world—at the moment they are predominantly Islamic, but this would apply if it were any other ideologically inspired terrorism, not just radical Islamic terrorism—that they should sacrifice their Australian citizenship.
The new ways in which a person would renounce their citizenship would be if they were not acting consistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist related conduct, including engaging in international terrorist activities using explosives or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of terrorist organisations, whether the person is directing them from Australia or here in Australia; recruiting people for terrorism; financing terrorism and financing someone to go overseas and become an active terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and foreign recruitment. It is pretty clear-cut—that person, by their actions, declares themselves to be not respecting the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship.
I cannot see how anyone could argue against this. I can see the potential for arguing against it if you were going to render someone stateless. If they are an Australian citizen and they turn out to be a bad and evil person, it is our duty to fix them up, but if they are having a bet each way and are relying on the comfort and security of Australia being a port of convenience and a safe house while they plan, finance, commit and encourage terrorism, all bets are off—you have renounced your Australian citizenship and there is the exit. There is an extensive list of what criminal offences would lead to this outcome. It is plain for all to see—there is no subtlety in it. It is an open and shut case of applying good national common sense. I commend this bill to the House.
The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is very important in the context of making our country safe—making our country safer—and ensuring that it is the safest place in which to live. Certainly the Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is, worryingly, increasing. The review mentions specifically that the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is on the rise. It found that the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is also, sadly, disturbingly, increasing. It also found that the number of potential terrorists is rising, and we have seen in recent days just how dreadful people who wish to do bad to those of goodwill are causing their dreadful terrorism acts across the world in Beirut, in Paris and in other places. We must make sure that our first priority of government is to make our nation safer, and that is what I believe, and the government believes, that this particular amendment is achieving.
Our security agencies are presently managing more than 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since 2014. That is a sad state of affairs and it is one that obviously we, as a government and as a parliament, need to act upon, and that is what we are doing with this amendment. Since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to high—and it has not been any lower since—26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. Unbelievably, that is more than one-third of terrorism-related charges since 2001, 14 years ago. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Northern Iraq. That angers me because, as the federal member for Riverina, my hometown is Wagga Wagga, and just south-west of Wagga Wagga is the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka. The Blamey Barracks there turn out each and every one of the recruits, some young and some not so young, men and women, the best and bravest, who receive their basic training, undergo a rigorous assessment and march out of Kapooka to join that long tradition of khaki—that long line which has stretched from the Anzac tradition, way back at Gallipoli, forward to today. It angers me to think that those good people—who are willing to serve their country, who are willing to be put in harm's way and who are willing to risk their lives—may well be sent overseas, as many of them are, and that they may come up against fellow citizens carrying dual citizenship, who do not deserve to be called Australians. Those who are holding dual citizenship and who want to fight against our brave soldiers, our brave Air Force personnel and our wonderful sailors in the Navy do not deserve to be called Australian if they want to take up arms against their fellow citizens. You only have to read the affirmation of allegiance at any citizenship ceremony, where the words are stated:
From this time forward—
in some cases 'under God' is submitted—
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
Taking up arms against your fellow men and women, who are from your own nation, is not respecting Australia's democratic beliefs; it is not upholding this great nation's laws.
I want to read in the parliament a speech given by Arora Kiddle from Yenda Public School. She was just 10 years of age when she presented this speech in a multicultural competition in 2014. I visited the school last year and I heard this fine young lady read this speech to her school. It is entitled, What makes a community?I think if a 10-year-old girl can understand what makes a community, particularly a multicultural community such as Yenda, then most other people should be able to. And anybody who wants to criticise this particular bill should get it as well—that we are a very multicultural nation; we are a very welcoming country. But we do not deserve to be a safe haven for people who come under dual citizenship and wish to do their fellow citizens harm. Yenda is a little town with a population of just over 1,500 people, according to the 2011 census, and it is 16 kilometres east of Griffith. In March 2012 it was flooded by Mirrool Creek, and I say that because, in the context of Arora's speech, that is necessary to know. Arora, in her wonderful and eloquent words, said this:
What makes a community?
We all know that the answer to this question is people: their relationships, their diversity and the spaces that they share.
My community is just like this. It has a post office, tennis courts, a football team, an awesome soccer club, a (not so) super market, a park, two schools, a pizza shop and a couple of churches (take your pick), a busy hairdresser and, as Dad reminds me, a pub! Not to mention all the nice people. Like Peter at the servo, he's a second generation Italian migrant. Mum asks him about the weather and gardening. There's Tappy the Butcher. He gives us lollipops and mum always gets stuck talking to him for ages! There is George our Egyptian chemist. He gives us chocolate if we're lucky. He and mum love to chat. Oh and there's the new bloke at the shop, he's Indian. I think he's nice. Mum is trying to talk him into getting takeaway Indian food in the shop on Friday nights because by the time we get home from school (after all that talking) she doesn't feel like cooking dinner! These people are all an important part of our community, but there is something deeper too. A feeling that can only be described with a story. May I tell you a story?
Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a little town in the middle of nowhere. Actually to be more accurate it was slightly to the left of the middle of nowhere. And this town was not so different from any small town. But in this little town something incredibly unusual happened …You see one night it rained. And it rained hard. The rain thumped the towns roofs all through the night and made birds' nests into swimming pools. It flooded the yards and streets and fish actually swam up and down the roads the next day. It was kind of magical that day, but the next day things changed. We were ordered to evacuate! And our town went underwater for the next three days in a giant flood.
This is where our story becomes a little sad. The flood destroyed lots of possessions, it severely damaged buildings and it even drowned many pets. It meant that our little community had to live in emergency accommodation while their houses were being fixed. This took a long time. For my house over a year, and for others even longer. Some houses were demolished altogether. Yenda became a ghost town!
But something else happened too. Our community grew closer. Here we were, no longer in our homes, or our schools, not eating our local pizza, but we were still a community.
Whenever we crossed each other's paths at the Emergency Centre, outside the temporary school, or anywhere else, we stopped to talk to one another. Our parents shared stories, cried together, and helped one another. Us kids played—as usual. We all got to know each other a little bit more as we shared each other's lives in ways that we would not have done otherwise.
We were a townspeople—without a town. But we were still a community.
You see, what makes a community is not simply a gathering of buildings that people live and work in. That's just bricks, blocks and mortar.
A community is a group of people with a shared experience and who help one another when it's needed, who share in each others ups and downs
A community is its people. Each and every one of them.
If little Arora Kiddle from Yenda Public School, aged 10, can get it, then so should all of us. We should all understand what a community is, what multiculturalism is.
There is no greater example of multiculturalism than the Riverina. In Griffith, when South Sudan became an independent nation, the community flew 99 flags, and I was asked to provide a flag for their Australia Day ceremony because they wanted to fly the flag of the new nation, which meant that there were 100 flags flown at the Griffith Australia Day ceremony. Griffith is the multicultural cradle of Australia. The Griffith community has people from all corners of the world as well as a large Indigenous population, but they get on remarkably well. It is a melting pot of multiculturalism. The community is remarkable, and I invite the member for Chifley, who is in the chamber, if he has nothing better to do one day, to come out to experience the wonderful community that is Griffith, because it is remarkable. They get on so well. They are very resilient.
Mr Husic interjecting—
What was that?
What are the lattes like?
What are the lattes like? I do not drink lattes! But they do grow and provide the very best food that you could ever hope for, Member for Chifley.
They do have white coffee.
There is no better place to enjoy a meal than in Griffith, and it is all home-grown food. You would love it, Member for Chifley; trust me.
I say that in the context of this bill because Griffith understands about providing a safe haven for migrants. My goodness, they were flooded with migrants just after World War I, and our returning soldiers from that deadly conflict were offered soldier settler blocks. But the flood of migrants after World War II was quite remarkable. Persecuted people from war-ravaged Europe, including Italians, all descended on Griffith to eke out a very tough existence in what was an unforgiving plain; but they turned into a fertile garden of Eden.
I say all that because they understand what it means to be a multicultural community, and they also understand what it means to be an Australian citizen. I know, from talking to the many Indians, the many Fijians and, as I said before, the many Italians and others from all countries and all walks of life who are in Griffith, that they get what it means to be an Australian. Many of them have not been here for many generations, but they are certainly very proud of their community. Many are very proud of their roots, but they also understand that being an Australian means fighting very hard to protect the ideals, the high qualities and the preferences that our nation has provided, and they understand that it is absolutely criminal to rise up and oppose those high ideals, that very high calibre of being an Australian.
This bill goes to the fact that citizenship should be respected and never, ever taken for granted. As this bill states:
… Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.
We get that. The new powers in the bill are necessary. They are an appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat—the hatred that lingers in the hearts and minds, sadly, of the people who wave that terrible black flag, who call themselves Islamic State. They are not a state. A state builds things. A state looks after its people. A state understands the freedom to express different religious beliefs and faiths. A state understands that there ought to be fairness; there ought to be equality. A state does not tear down. A state does not destroy. A state does not kill. That is why this Australian citizenship amendment bill is so important.
As I said, Arora gets it. I think her words depict beautifully what it means to be an Australian. They eloquently describe what it means to be a citizen of this great nation. She and all her Yenda Public School mates, and, I would suggest, every kid who is in a Riverina school, understand how great it is to live in this nation. The passage of this bill also means that this nation will be a safer place and that we will not tolerate people who want to kill and destroy in the name of religion, in the name of terrorism. Those children understand that it is important that this nation is the safest of all in which to live, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.
It is with a great sense of duty that I rise to speak in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is a very important piece of legislation. Citizenship goes to the heart of the Australian social contract. The values which define what it means to be a citizen are the bedrock on which our society is structured. Equality of men and women under the law, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background; freedom of speech, association and religion; and support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law are what have made Australia the shining beacon that it is in the world today. These values—and, thus, citizenship—are things which we should always treasure.
There are, however, some amongst us—fellow citizens—who disagree with these values and seek to take up arms at home and abroad against us. It is these few that this amendment seeks to address. We live in a world much changed from that of 1948, when the Australian parliament first promulgated the Nationality and Citizenship Act, including within it a clause cancelling the citizenship of any person fighting in the service of an enemy of this country. In 2015, many of our enemies do not wear uniforms or fight under the flag of anything which we would recognise as a nation state. The ongoing conflicts which we have been engaged in over the past decade and a half—first against al-Qaeda and now against ISIS—are testament to that. Instead, today we face a threat that transcends borders and threatens to affect us here at home and abroad, as seen, tragically, in France two weeks ago. The threat from terrorism in Australia is rising. Our security agencies are currently dealing with over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations—a doubling since early 2014. In just the last 14 months, 26 people have been charged with terrorist offences—more than one-third of all charges since 2001. It saddens me to say that there are currently more than 100 Australians fighting or serving in terrorist groups in Syria or Iraq. Like any military force, they have an even larger logistics network, with over 200 people in Australia enabling the work of ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by either financing and recruitment or seeking to travel there.
There is a longstanding provision in the act that someone who serves as part of an armed force of an enemy state and takes up arms against Australia could lose their citizenship. In a modern world, where the wars we fight are no longer between states, this provision needs updating. It must be said that supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, which is no different to taking up arms in the service of a country at war with our own. In this light, the new powers in this bill are a necessary, measured and appropriate response to the terrorist threat. More than anything, this bill is about making the Australian community safer. It is achieving that by ensuring that terrorists who are convicted here can be removed and terrorists who commit atrocities overseas cannot return to do the same here. I, for one, will never apologise for putting the security and safety of the people of my electorate, and of all fellow Australians, first.
This bill comes as part of a long line of legislation this government has introduced to parliament to ensure the safety of Australian citizens. Last year, we introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014, which has allowed us to curb the flow of fighters from Australia to Iraq and Syria and has strengthened our ability to combat terrorism at home. Another example is the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015, through which we have revoked the visas of hardened criminals and bikie gang associates—people who, by their own actions, have lost the privilege of being part of Australian society.
As such, this legislation provides three ways in which a dual national can cease to be an Australian citizen. The first, section 33AA, is a new provision whereby a person aged 14 or older renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist related conduct. Such conduct includes: engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with the preparation for, engagement in or assistance with a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism; financing a terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. The second element extends the provision that already permits the automatic loss of citizenship for a person serving in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia to include those persons fighting for, or in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. This provision has been in force since 1949. Under the third element of the bill, a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they have been convicted of a specified terrorist related offence and are sentenced to a period or periods of imprisonment that total at least six years. This provision is not automatic, and recourse to judicial review is available for those determined to have engaged in the conduct that repudiates their allegiance to Australia.
As stated, these provisions will only apply to those who are dual nationals and meet Australia's international obligations not to render a person stateless. Those who engage in terrorism are betraying their allegiance to this country and do not deserve to count themselves as some of its citizens. This bill is also retrospective in nature, which I strongly support. As my colleague the member for Cowan has noted, by applying these laws to those who have been convicted of terrorist acts over the previous decade, it provides the opportunity to deal with terrorists such as Abdul Benbrika. For the benefit of the House, Mr Benbrika was convicted in 2008 for leading a terrorist group that planned attacks in Melbourne, targeting the Crown casino and the MCG. This was someone who was granted the privilege of Australian citizenship in 1998, only to turn around a decade later and plot to murder his fellow citizens in the most horrific manner possible. This is someone who, by his own actions, has lost the right to call himself Australian.
I have often wondered at those who have come to Australia—a country which is one of the happiest, healthiest and most productive in the world, in no small part due to the values on which it is based—and wish to change those values to be more akin to those with which they are familiar. As Prime Minister Turnbull has said, there is a great, glorious world out there. If you have made the decision that you prefer another part of it then that is your decision. Having made that decision, however, you must be willing to live with the consequences. Any person willing to go and fight for an organisation like ISIS, who bears our great nation ill will, should understand that doing so will cost them the right to call themselves Australian.
The people of Hasluck—some of whom are recent arrivals to this country, who have come here seeking a better life for themselves and for their families—certainly understand what that right is to call themselves Australian and what it is worth. They understand the need to keep Australia safe from those who would do us harm. Equally, these new citizens, migrants from all over the world who have chosen to become part of our great country, understand the obligations that come with being an Australian citizen. They understand that becoming part of the Australian nation involves adopting our values and that with the rights and privileges afforded to citizens come reciprocal bonds and obligations as well.
This bill is just one of many efforts the coalition has made since coming into office two years ago to counter the threat of violent extremism and to ensure our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to disrupt and respond to the terrorist threat. In the last year alone, the government has invested an additional $1.3 billion to support Australia's efforts in combating terrorism, including $450 million to strengthen intelligence capabilities and counter extremist messaging and $152 million to strengthen our border security against terrorism and criminal networks.
Equally, however, we are focusing on the root of the problem, not just its enforcement. We are putting huge resources into combating violent extremism and trying to prevent extremist groups from targeting young Australians for recruitment. We have a four-pronged approach. First, we are working to maintain the strong, multicultural society which we have built as a community and as a nation. Second, we are helping community institutions combat violent extremist ideology where it emerges. Third, we are challenging and undermining the appeal of terrorist propaganda, especially online. And, lastly, we are directly intervening to divert individuals away from violent extremist views. These are not just words. We are backing them with real action. The Australian government has committed $660 million over four years in the 2015-16 federal budget for initiatives that encourage positive settlement, social harmony and integration in our multicultural communities. These include the government's combating terrorist propaganda online initiative, which is receiving almost $22 million over four years to challenge extremist narratives and reduce access to extremist material online. We are working in partnership with private sector companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, on whose platforms these terrorists depend. The coalition makes no apology for taking a hardline stance when it comes to the safety and security of Australians.
This government is determined to protect Australians from those who choose to fight, at home or abroad, in the service of terrorist organisations who wish to extinguish the values on which this country was founded. We make no apologies for that. We will not provide succour or refuge to those who wish us harm. We will not defend those who have taken up arms against us. And I personally make no apologies for taking a hardline stance when it comes to the safety and security of constituents in my electorate of Hasluck. When I reflect on the postwar periods of World War I and World War II, I see the incredible contribution that so many people from across the seas have made to developing what we value—the values of this nation—and the communities that hold us in good stead. They have contributed to building a nation that is strong and that has prospered. They have contributed to the wealth of food and the diversity of ideas and thinking.
The contributions that so many have made to making this nation great is always valued, and what we value we do not wish to lose. Therefore, it is important that, in our deliberations and considerations in this chamber and in the other, we ensure that the safety of all Australians is paramount in our minds. The way of life that we have enjoyed over the building of this great country will always be cherished, and we should never diminish its opportunity to continue to expand and grow and to welcome those who come from overseas to become part of the family. When you marry into a family you become as one. You share common values. You work to make it a greater partnership. You build on the firmness of the foundation that is there and you welcome those who come within your sphere of influence. In that context, I commend the bill to the House.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this place, following the wise words of the member for Hasluck. Today, I rise in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Every Australian who watches or reads the news knows that the threat of terrorism has been increasing around the world. The tragic and senseless attacks on the people of France last week and the people of Mali this week have made it abundantly clear to many of us that the threat is high. In the wake of the attacks that our country has faced in the past 12 months, the support of Australians for a strong approach to the threat of terrorism in our country has grown stronger.
I think it is wise to reflect sometimes that we are indeed the land of opportunity. It is disappointing to see that there are those who have come to this country and who we have let into this country in good faith who seem to take advantage of that. Since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to 'high', it is disappointing to note that we have seen 26 people charged as a result of 10 counterterrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. Currently, around 110 Australians are fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, and about 190 people in Australia are providing support to these individuals or groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing, recruitment or seeking to travel.
Sometimes I think it is worth us taking the opportunity to understand a little more about some of the issues we face. Again, it is important to reflect that this is about a minority. As I will touch on a little later, the majority who I have come across in my community genuinely want to be part of the Australian community. Roger Scruton, in the forward to Robert Reilley's book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, puts it very well and I think it is important for us to reflect on these comments:
Policy makers beware: unless you are ready to admit that you are facing an essentially theological problem in the Middle East, do not go about prescribing solutions, for you may actually make matters worse – particularly by creating the false impression that economic, sociological or political programs can fix what is, in fact, a delusion of faith. They cannot.
He goes on to talk about the need for a reformation that the Islamic world needs to face and which the Christian world dealt with several centuries ago.
Earlier this year the government announced that it would develop amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the removal of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conflict, a measure that is backed by the broader community and by many residents in my electorate of Forde. I think that in this regard it is worth considering what the pledge of allegiance says in the Australian Citizenship Act. Obviously, there are two. The first one reads, 'From this time forward, under God,' and the second one reads, 'From this time forward'. But the rest of it is the same:
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
At the end of the day, that is what we are asking these people to do. We have, in good faith, allowed them to come to settle in Australia. They have sought refuge from the difficulties and vicissitudes of life in the Middle East, and we have opened our doors to allow them safe passage and residence here in Australia. I think, given the words in the pledge of allegiance, that it is more than fair that we expect those people to live up to those words.
Therefore, supporting and engaging in terrorist activities are against Australia's interests, and they are a break of that person's commitment and allegiance to our country. If that is the choice they make then I wholeheartedly agree that they no longer deserve to retain their Australian citizenship. It is our citizenship which is the bond that unites us all. It should be respected and not taken for granted.
A review of Australia's counterterrorism machinery has found that the terrorist threat is rising in Australia—specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas and the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremism, as well as the number of potential terrorists. Therefore, this government is taking national security seriously, and this bill is part of that reassessment of our national security position. It looks at the citizenship side of the equation.
It inserts a 'purpose clause', setting out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based; it outlines circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism related activities; it outlines circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill; it provides for reporting on and monitoring of the operation of the arrangements in the bill; and it provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring. The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how that person became an Australian citizen and including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth.
I think it is important to note that our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counterterrorism investigations, and that this number has more than doubled since early 2014. As stated in the bill, parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia. The new powers in the bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of this terrorist threat. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement today, I think it is evident that as a government we have taken a calm, professional and effective approach to this matter.
Since the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1949, there have been provisions for the automatic loss of citizenship in cases where a dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. It is important that our laws are updated to reflect current threats to our country and our values through terrorism related activity.
I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the nature of our multicultural community. The community that I represent in part is in Logan but also in the northern part of the Gold Coast. Particularly in Logan we have a community that has people of some 215 cultures who live and work together in peace and harmony. In the past week, many of us in this place would have taken the opportunity to visit many of our local high schools as they had their graduation ceremonies for this year's grade 12 graduating class. One of the things that struck me in visiting many of those ceremonies was the changing face of the students in our schools reflecting increasingly the multicultural nature of our communities.
I remember at a number of schools young ladies from Sudanese or other African backgrounds who were able to come up on stage and hold their heads high because they were being presented with academic or sporting awards and receiving recognition for their efforts at school. I think it is wise to reflect that in their home countries it is highly unlikely they would have reached grade 12 let alone, if they had, been on stage receiving awards for academic or sporting prowess and, in a number of cases, receiving bursaries to attend university.
I think we as a nation should be very proud of ourselves that we have been able to accept a range of people from the four corners of the globe. As I stand in this place, I am an example of this. My parents arrived from Holland in the mid-1960s. I am a first-generation child of immigrants. I have the honour of representing in this place a community I grew up in as the son of migrants from Europe in the 1960s.
We as a country should not be afraid to stand on the values and ethos on which this country has been built. We should not be afraid to defend those values. We will continue to have open doors to welcome people from the four corners of the world who are seeking to come to Australia and create a better life for themselves and their families. In that regard I strongly support the measures in this bill as we seek to strengthen Australia's anti-terrorism measures. People who disrespect our country, our citizenship and our culture do not deserve to remain here. The Australian way of life is about celebrating our multiculturalism; it is not about segregation. The Australian way of life celebrates freedom, mateship and democracy, not fear, dictatorship or oppression. We will protect the Australian way of life and revoke the Australian citizenship of those who fight against our values. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I speak in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. In the last week the Labor opposition released some significant policy with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. In the last week we have delivered our commitments in relation to justice and the Constitution and the meaningful and substantive change that we seek. We have announced our recommitment to the development of justice targets in closing the gap and our commitment to justice reinvestment for the first time in the history of this country. Upon the election of a federal Labor government there would be a commitment to a national approach to justice reinvestment, the proper evaluation of the Bourke site and three new launch sites in relation to justice reinvestment. We also announced our commitment to justice in gender equity, addressing the shocking rates of Indigenous incarceration amongst Aboriginal women, and also in relation to making sure that vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, particularly young women, at school can ensure that they finish their schooling.
There is much that we disagree with the government on in relation to Indigenous affairs policy. We have been highly critical of the Abbott-Turnbull government's commitment to and almost obsession with, it would seem, cutting their way to closing the gap. We have been very critical of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. But we support the legislation before the chamber. We will support good policy when we see fit, and we support this legislation.
Not enough Australians actually know about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It was conceived during the Whitlam Labor years but was passed with bipartisan support under the Fraser coalition government. For the benefit of those who may be listening, the legislation allows for title to land to be granted to a land trust on behalf of the traditional owners. That title is owned by the traditional owners in a communal body in the nature of Aboriginal land ownership. The act provides that land councils who represent traditional owners can negotiate with developers and mining companies on their behalf. It also provides that royalty equivalent funds from mining and development on Aboriginal land are to be paid to an Aboriginal land account and dispersed on an annual basis for the benefit of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory after an advisory committee has advised the minister about where that money should go. That is an important piece of legislation, and it has received bipartisan support since its inception back in 1976.
This legislation was born out of a long history of strength and struggle by Aboriginal people across the country, culminating in the historic Yolngu bark petitions, the Wave Hill walk-off and the moment, which is etched in our national history, when Gough Whitlam poured sand through the fingers of Vincent Lingiari. Recently we celebrated yet another historic moment of justice and healing—the 30th anniversary of the handback of Uluru to its traditional owners, the Anangu people. The Anangu people have been connected to Uluru and the surrounding land for thousands of years. It was a special relationship that was not always respected. Gough Whitlam's decision was controversial at the time, but it has now been accepted by the Australian community. It has been a tremendous asset to the Australian community and it is an important part of our history. The handback did not always enjoy understanding and bipartisanship, but I am very pleased that this has grown over the last 30 years.
The special connection of the traditional owners to their land was officially recognised by the government of the day and recently celebrated in the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act remains a critically important piece of legislation, which safeguards hard-fought Indigenous land rights in the Northern Territory. It is worth bearing that in mind every time this House considers changes, no matter how big or small, to this important piece of legislation. It is important that changes to this legislation have the full, free and informed consent of traditional owners, and this has been done here, to the credit of the government. I note that all four land councils in the Northern Territory, representing traditional owners in the Northern Territory, have been consulted and have given their support for this legislative amendment. As such, respecting the land councils' support—and we have contacted them ourselves—we support the amendments.
The Aboriginal Land Rights Act has been an important vehicle for Aboriginal economic development in the Northern Territory, and these amendments will empower Aboriginal people to further progress economic and social development opportunities in the Northern Territory. The community of Mutitjulu is located on Aboriginal land at the base of Uluru and the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, two World Heritage listed sites. Since my appointment as the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I once again visited Mutitjulu community and discussed issues in relation to the challenges they face. There are exciting economic opportunities for the Mutitjulu community in close proximity to these sites. As we honour the historic handback of Uluru, we must also recognise that the land that was handed back to its traditional owners was immediately leased to the Commonwealth government to be jointly managed by the government and the traditional owners for 99 years. The current lease expires in 2084.
The bill expands the function of the executive director of township leasing by allowing it, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land. Importantly, the bill provides that the executive director of township leasing may transfer a sublease of Aboriginal land to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation. This is important because traditional owners must be empowered to make decisions about their land and economic development. The community control of subleases of Aboriginal land gives Aboriginal people control over how their community is developed, and that is critical. It will allow for a leasing model that builds on the aspirations and vision of Aboriginal people for what they want to happen on their country. To support the transfer of subleases to Aboriginal corporations, the Aboriginals Benefit Account will provide funding to facilitate the transfer.
The bill makes some important amendments in relation to the delegation of land council functions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. While I am very happy that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has decided not to pursue the same path he took last year in relation to land councils, I think the government made a terrible and tragic mistake in terms of the relationship between the government and the land councils through the minister's almost obsessive attitude at the time. He wanted to bring in a regulation that would have stripped the land councils in the Northern Territory of some of the most important functions that they had, while at the same time making them legally responsible for decisions made by corporations that may not even have had any connection to that particular land or any Indigenous representation. We opposed that decision. We opposed it in the Senate and we were successful in stopping it, with the support of the crossbenchers and the Greens.
Those functions are critical for the land councils to exercise in a way that respects the traditional owners, and I am pleased that the government has had a change of heart. They have had an almost Damascus-road-conversion experience on this issue and want to restart their relationship with the land councils. It was a very inauspicious start for the minister. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs did not have the consent of traditional owners and the land councils to try and make those changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. But, finally, after the changes were fiercely opposed with much rancour and bitterness in the Northern Territory, the government saw fit not to make them.
A different approach was taken by the minister when he spoke at the Garma Festival. I spoke at the festival myself, and he spoke the night before me. He wanted to reset the relationship with the land councils, and I am pleased with the approach that he seems to have taken in relation to this legislation before the chamber. The opposition and the land councils have supported this particular amendment. We intervened in the past, but we will support this legislation. When the government puts forward good legislation that will benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we will support it. The minister has consulted in relation to this issue, and I am pleased that he has now listened to the concerns of traditional owners and the land councils.
We have to have genuine partnerships with the traditional owners and the land councils in the Northern Territory if we want to achieve anything. I hope that the minister and the government have learnt a very valuable lesson from the fiasco of the authoritarian way in which they tried, upon their election to government, to almost destroy the land councils. The amendments repeal section 28C, removing the minister's ability to override a land council decision not to delegate functions. We welcome that. This overriding decision-making power of the minister to overrule the land council, in addition to the inability of a land council to exercise functions or powers once they have been delegated, has impeded development in the area.
The land councils, as I say, are very important organisations in the Northern Territory. They comprise the traditional owners. We welcome the amendments to repeal provisions that would remove their decision making capacity in relation to their land. Similarly, we support the amendment to allow for variation of land council administrative areas at the request and with the agreement, consent, approval and approbation of the land councils. I congratulate the traditional owners of the parcels of land in respect of the Wickham River, Simpson Desert and the Vernon Islands, which are returned to their ownership under schedule 1 of the land rights legislation. We support the legislation before the chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. I first acknowledge that each day as this parliament sits we pay our respects to the traditional owners. We acknowledge the importance of their place; we acknowledge them as the First Australians. We have come a long way and we still have a long way to go in securing what I think are appropriate opportunities for our First Australians in a society which has sometimes been seen as divided and, perhaps, a little unwelcome.
I was in the parliament when the land rights legislation was enacted. In fact, I entered the parliament in 1973. The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission was established at that time. Justice Edward Woodward was the commissioner of it, and it became known as the Woodward Royal Commission. It was the report initiated by the Whitlam government which gave rise to this legislation enacted by the Fraser government.
The commission, interestingly, had two reports. One presented in July 1973, and one of its key recommendations was the establishment of the land councils, the central and northern councils. Later we saw others, such as the Tiwi Land Council, and, from time to time, there have been views that there should be even further divisions. The second report, presented to the parliament in April 1974, was one that was drawn from a lot of the material that was submitted, particularly through the land councils, and the second report recommended that land rights legislation be introduced. I could go into detail, but it was legislation that achieved bipartisan support. I might say that I played a role later chairing the joint select committee on the implementation of Northern Territory land rights legislation. So I have had an interest in this legislation over a long period of time. There was a point at which I also was the minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and later for a merged portfolio of immigration, citizenship and Indigenous affairs. For me, we have been on a very important journey over a period of time and one not always as successful as I would like.
I remember when I was a young student at university studying with Charlie Perkins at that time and later knowing Margaret Valadian. These were the two Indigenous graduates that we had in Australia when I was a student and first became a member of parliament. I remember others that emerged over time. I look at people today who have had university degrees and contributed very significantly. I think of somebody like Professor Larissa Behrendt, whom I know and saw only a few days ago in Sydney. I think of the many thousands of Indigenous graduates that we have today, and I look back at the Tranby Aboriginal College in Sydney, around Sydney University, where I studied, and think of those First Australians who were receiving university education. For me, these were important developments, slow in coming. For many, those opportunities still do not exist, and that has to be addressed.
I had the great privilege of serving with Neville Bonner when he first arrived in the parliament as an Indigenous Australian in the Senate. There have been others that have come in the Senate. I am so delighted that I have been able to serve in a parliament with my friend Ken Wyatt, an Indigenous Australian and now a minister. I think, 'Isn't it great that we have come this far?' He has been elected not because he happens to be Indigenous but because he is a person with extraordinary ability and capacity and is able to make a contribution to this nation and its future. I am immensely proud that I am able to know him and to see his success.
For me, I still focus on the fact that we have a long way to go. I see many Indigenous people in a city like Sydney—some who are marginalised and some who are given their educational opportunities, and we see a lot with our schools that are helping young people to get sounder educations and to get into our universities. There are many who are achieving but there are still many who do not. The areas which I think are most challenging are those areas in which the level of contact has been more difficult, where isolation and the way in which we do our bit mean that many Indigenous people do not have the opportunities to make choices about what opportunities there may be for their future. I have always found this very difficult. How do you give self-management and self-determination and allow people to make elections and ensure that they are still able to make choices about how they participate in our broader society? How do they get the education that will help to enable them to make those choices?
I look at many of the places where people live and where we have given land rights, and where we think this is going to create opportunities for them, and, as I see it, those measures that we thought were going to be beneficial and helpful have not always worked as intended. I think that is one of the reasons we are looking at this particular legislation today. One of the things that has surprised me, when I have been into many communities where land is traditionally owned, is how you get people who may want to save and to work and to get themselves a home or create a business but who are going to do it on community-owned land. How do they feel that they have actually got a benefit—a benefit that they have worked to achieve—when the land interest is not theirs?
I see this legislation as particularly important because it will enable individuals who want to take up those opportunities to do so in an Indigenous community because there will be the opportunity for reasonably long-term leases to be granted by the community to an individual. I think that is a very significant movement. It may have to go further, but this legislation is about providing a new engagement for Indigenous Australians to get better outcomes in the communities in which they are living. In that sense, this delivers on a commitment that the government made to amend the Northern Territory land rights act to better empower communities—that is, the Aboriginal landowners—to be able to make these decisions to give opportunities to their people. It removes barriers that have been an impediment to economic development and opportunities.
If you get the impression that I think this is a very meaningful advance, you are right. Does it fully empower individuals to function in those environments? Time will tell, when we see whether the leases are made and how people are able to use them. But, for me, measures that work in partnership with the local communities to put in place localised decision making which can produce these benefits ought to be approved. I am pleased that the opposition has said that they support these measures, because, quite frankly, in relation to some of the issues that this legislation deals with—by working to resolve long-term tenure issues and to open up the Mutitjulu community to be able to take advantage of the unique economic opportunities offered by its location close to one of the most visited world heritage sites at Uluru—it becomes fairly obvious, doesn't it, that there are economic opportunities there that can be leveraged if people are freed to make those decisions.
I am pleased that the land councils, through this legislation, will be able to delegate their functions and powers to Indigenous corporations in a way which now, given the changes that we are making, will ensure it will happen. Back in 2006, we thought benefits of this sort might arise, but for particular reasons that did not happen. I am certainly glad that we have land councils that have recognised the importance of moving forward with this. I am certainly hopeful that the very significant investments that we are making in Indigenous-specific programs will ensure that people can take steps that will enable them to benefit more fully from all of the opportunities that are offered here in Australia.
I think the government's emphasis on helping our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have better opportunities for education, employment and economic opportunities is going to be important for the future. I have been watching these issues for some 40 years. I would have liked to have seen progress very much earlier than we have seen it. I saw the Whitlam government, I saw the Fraser government, I saw the government of Hawke and Keating, I saw the Howard government, and I have seen the governments of Rudd and Gillard and now Abbott and Turnbull. There have been governments of many different variations in that time, and there is nobody who can say, 'We had the perfect answer and we have made it work.' Nobody can claim that.
So I see this as a step along the way. If people are given the capacity to utilise their skills and their talents then I think we will see, inevitably, a better society. It can happen in some of the most remote and difficult areas of Australia, and if that happens it will be a very good thing. I will be watching these measures very closely. I hope that many Indigenous people will be able to take up the opportunities that this bill will provide, to be able to build their own home and be proud of it and to know that they have security of tenure, and to be able to create a business and be proud of it and to build economic opportunities for themselves and their families. I think it is a good reform, and, if it produces those sorts of outcomes, I think it will make Australia a better place for our First Australians.
I acknowledge the contributions that have been made thus far to the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015 by the shadow spokesperson and by the member for Berowra. I appreciate the member for Berowra's experience in this place and his role, as he described, in those years after the Whitlam government and as an observer of matters to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, in particular, in this instance, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I do appreciate his observations; however, I think some of them may be little bit misguided—not misguided because of any fault of his but because I think there may be a lack of understanding about how the act operates—and I will come to that in a moment.
It is clear as we speak today that, under section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, it is possible to have, and people do have, subleases of Aboriginal freehold land to carry out all manner of activities. This has been available since 1976, and there is a plethora of economic activity happening on Aboriginal communities as we speak using this section 19 lease. It is possible, and it has been possible since 1976, under section 19 of the land rights act, for individuals to seek a lease for the purpose of building their own home. Sadly, from one perspective, that has not happened. There have not been a large number of people seeking to lease land for the purpose of building their own homes. There are township leases in Nguiu. Under those township leases to the Commonwealth, there have been I think three or four, maybe five, individual homeowners. But the number of people with homeownership or seeking homeownership is small. It is largely because of the economic environment in which people live—and their aspirations are, frankly, a little different from yours or mine.
I think it is also fair to observe—I observe this as someone who comes from a post World War II family—that it was commonplace, and indeed it was the thing, for people to live in rented accommodation all their lives. My parents did. So it is not unusual to expect that people who currently live in rented, government provided accommodation should be happy to maintain the relationship with the government whilst they have access to accommodation. My parents did this, and indeed I can point you to suburbs in Canberra today where it has been the case that people of my parents' generation are still renters.
I know that we say that all Australians should aspire to homeownership. Frankly, it is moving out of the reach of many, so I would not be too hung up on that. What I do want to emphasise is the importance of acknowledging that people can use this act as it was meant to be used and designed to be used—for leasing land for the purposes of economic development and economic activity. Nevertheless, this piece of legislation—I was never a great fan of the Office of Township Leasing—provides the capacity for subleases from the Office of Township Leasing to go to an individual corporation, and that is a good idea, because it means Aboriginal owners of land can form the corporations which then manage the subleases. That is a very positive thing to do and it leaves the Office of Township Leasing where it should be—in Canberra—having very little to do with what goes on. Obviously, the arrangement for the Aboriginals Benefit Account to pay the costs associated with new leasing arrangements are important, and of course there are two new parcels of land, which I will refer to later, under the legislation. These further amendments which the government has made will bring the delegation of land council functions and powers in the land rights act in line with standard practice in delegation arrangements and improve the process for delegations.
It is important to understand that the reason this has not happened before is government overreach. The objective of amending this legislation to effectively mean that the minister could take away the delegated powers of the land council and provide them to a corporation that was then not responsible was ludicrous. No wonder it was opposed by Aboriginal community organisations and Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory. I might point out for the sake of those who are listening—not that there are that many, because proceedings are not being broadcast—that all of the land rights acts in the Northern Territory affect my electorate and my electorate alone. The Tiwi Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council all operate solely within my electorate. It is important to understand that, except for the provision of some land in Darwin—although, under the land rights act, the land on the Cox Peninsula is part of my electorate; it is not part of the electorate of Solomon—I have had a relationship with these land councils since prior to being elected to parliament. Indeed, I worked as policy officer for the Central Land Council immediately prior to being a candidate and being elected to this parliament. So I understand and appreciate the importance of land councils and land rights in the Northern Territory.
For those who want to reflect upon our history in this regard—and thank you to the Fraser government following the Whitlam government drafting the legislation—it is without doubt the singular most important change to Aboriginal affairs in this country in the second half of last century. There is no question of that. It is the only piece of Commonwealth legislation that has given statutory recognition to land rights, and that was much prior to native title. For that, those governments, with so much foresight, need to be applauded. The land councils have carried out their roles diligently, with a great deal of pressure at times from external organisations—mining companies, pastoralists and others over the years. Thankfully, those attitudes have all changed and the relationships that exist between mining companies, other developers, the pastoral industry and land councils in the Northern Territory are now very positive. I could not say the same for late 1970s and early 1980s, when there was a war of attrition.
In 1985 Uluru was handed back to the traditional owners as a result of a very insightful piece of work by the then ministers responsible—Clyde Holding as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Barry Cohen as Minister for the Environment. The traditional owners, the Pitjantjatjara, Anangu, Yankunytjatjara people from that region, but principally the Pitjantjatjara and the Yankunytjatjara people, failed in their land claim bid for this area of land. The Commonwealth took the initiative and said, 'Well, how about we create a national park; we give you the land; you lease it back to us for the purposes of the interests of all Australians; and you will get a direct benefit as a result.' The township, which under this legislation will be excised out of the park for the purposes of administration, was part of the national park. That has been an issue since the enactment of the legislation, but, most importantly, since the transfer of title way back in 1985.
I was present at the handover, just as I was present recently at the 30th anniversary celebration. I spoke at that celebration—forgive me, because I am going to speak in Pitjantjatjara.
Kulila Anangu tjuta Visitor tjuta Ngayuku malpa tjuta Ngayulu pukulpa mulapa pitjangu kuwari. Itiri, October 1985, nyiri pulka ngarangu, Uluruku, Kata Tjutaku ka uwankara pukularingu. Kuwari, mganana piruku uwankara tjunguringanyi puli wiruku. Nganana pulkara kuliningi mantaku, munu tjukurpaku munu waltja wiyaringkuntja kulu. Nganana pukulpa mulapa ka ngayulu alatji kulini. Puli pulka, puli wiru panya—ngaranyitu, ngaranyitu.
Nyawa! Puli pulka ngarinyi, titutjara alitjitu.
Nyurampa—Uwankaraaku Palya.
I was saying that I was present in 1985, I was happy to be there, I was happy to be at the recent celebration and how important this place was for Anangu people, for Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara traditional owners. I said at the end, because I remember this day vividly, when the land was handed over and the lease was handed back, there was a big sign. There was opposition from the Northern Territory government, which did not want this to happen. Yami Lester, who was a principal involved at the time, got up the next day and said, 'Look, it has not been taken away—it is still here.' What I said here was, 'Look, look, it is still here. And we are happy that it is still there.'
It is important that we acknowledge these past historical events and understand their importance to Australia. I note the contribution by the member for Berowra, and he is absolutely correct about the importance of us working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in this case Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, to ensure that they maintain control of their lands and develop it in the way which suits their priorities—not necessarily ours. What is hard from many of us to understand is the cultural importance that people attach to their country—their attachment to it is for law reasons, for traditional affiliations to that country and for the priority that culture has. It is a priority that does not exist for us. Let's be very clear about that. When Aboriginal people talk about country, they talk about it differently. Their concept of ownership is very different from the one which we have—one that is based on a statutory title. Theirs has been since time immemorial—no written document but a body of law nevertheless. People have understood what that law has meant and what it means in terms of succession—what happens when someone passes away; who has the obligations the ceremony; who owns the stories for that piece of land; and how they connect to other pieces of land. These are of crucial importance.
Even today we have representatives from Watarrka—Kings Canyon National Park, which is in the Central Land Council region, south of Alice Springs—in Canberra trying to stop gas exploration in the national park, because it happens to be crown land. The miners say, 'Yes, but some people want it.' The fact is the traditional owners are opposed to it and they are opposed to it because of the sacredness of that country. Many Australians, sadly, are yet to wake up to what that really means. It is not some blithe term or some 'Just hear me out, this is my sacred country', they have to understand the depth of that statement and what it means. Sadly, too many do not.
I regard myself as being very fortunate in life—very fortunate in having the opportunity to live and work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples around the Northern Territory and indeed across Australia. I hope I have learnt something, I hope I have acknowledged the importance of their country and I hope I have helped others to appreciate how we should properly deal with them as traditional owners of this land of ours.
We are very fortunate to be able to be in this place, looking at this piece of legislation and acknowledging that as a result of this legislation there will be two new parcels of land which have been scheduled under the land rights act. These two parcels are important to those Aboriginal people and they are both places that I know. One is in the area of the Wickham River and the Simpson Desert; it is schedule 1 under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The other one is Uleperte, a small area to the east of Ltyente Purte or Santa Teresa. The Land Commissioner made no finding in the original land claim on the identity of the traditional ownership, but recommended that the area be scheduled under the act. The Wickham River land is in the Victoria River region, to the north-west of Kalkaringi and south and a little west of Timber Creek. That is very important, because Kalkaringi is, of course, the home of that great man, Vincent Lingiari. He led that walk off so many years ago and changed the psyche of Australians towards Aboriginal people and their land. I thank the government for presenting this legislation and I assure it that there is bipartisan support for it.
I also speak in favour of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. Like the member for Lingiari, I congratulate the government on introducing this legislation. It will be unanimously supported in this House and will be a net contributor to the wellbeing and welfare of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That is why my colleague the member for Lingiari speaks in such a passionate manner about this subject, born not just of his great and substantial knowledge but of his lifelong commitment to the issues that are underpinned by this legislation.
This bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to expand the functions of the Executive Director of Township Leasing by allowing it on behalf on the Commonwealth to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land. The bill of course will also facilitate a resolution of the irregular and uncertain tenure arrangements in the community of Mutitjulu. The community of Mutitjulu is located on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, and in 1985 it was leased by the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Land Trust to the Director of National Parks for 99 years. That lease expires in 2084. At the time of the creation of the lease, of the effective handover of the rock to Aboriginal peoples, I was living in the Northern Territory and I had met Warren Snowdon many times. The decision by the Hawke government to transfer the title of the rock was highly contentious. It was a tough political battle and a battle that was engaged in with vigour by all sides—it was a battle which I believe brought no credit to the then government of the Northern Territory or the then opposition in the federal parliament. At that time hundreds of thousands of dollars of territory taxpayers' money was spent on a campaign to stop the rock from being given away. I have before me and ad that was run in the Northern Territory News. It is headed 'The rock belongs to all Australians!' and declares:
On October 26 without consultation or mandate, the federal Labor government will hand over Ayers Rock and the whole of the Uluru National Park to fewer than 100 Australians. They will then pay these special Australians $75,000 a year to lease it back from them. All Australians visiting Ayers Rock will pay to see it, and the new owners will get 20% of that fee.
This was an ad paid for by the government of the Northern Territory. This was a campaign joined by the federal opposition—by then opposition leader John Howard. This was a campaign that saw some of the very worst elements of our country come forward to argue what they thought was a principle argument about not allowing the rock to be given away. I was a young man at the time and I watched the thoughtful enthusiasm of Clyde Holding, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He grappled with the very poor political environment that had been created around what was in fact a gesture by the Australian government and by the Australian parliament—but, more than a gesture, it was getting real administration and process and employment and economic livelihood into the land rights debate in a way that was critically important. Clyde visited the Northern Territory on many occasions to explain the Commonwealth's position. The then Chief Minister, Ian Tuxworth, wound the campaign up with such ferocity in the Northern Territory—this is all documented in the Northern Territory News papers of the day, in 1983. One screaming headline declared 'Hawke gives Uluru Park to Aborigines' and the graphic used by the Northern Territory News is a silhouette of Ayers Rock with Clyde Holding's image on top and the words 'The final solution.' The campaign run at that time brought nothing but disgrace and embarrassment on us as Northern Territorians and on us as a nation.
I am really pleased that as we reflect on those events of the 1980s and as we reflect on what has become the reality of land rights in the Northern Territory, as much as I disagree that we can do gas mining on land in the Northern Territory I completely agree with the principle that if we do not have Indigenous approval we cannot go forward. That is not about the geology of gas mining, that is not about the interaction of gas and water, that is not about the technical doability of it—it is just about the reality that if you do not have Indigenous consent to use Indigenous land you cannot use it.
As we speak here today, according to the Northern Land Council more than 80 per cent of the value of extracted minerals in the Northern Territory comes from mining on Aboriginal owned land. This amounted last year to minerals production worth more than $1 billion—$1 billion a year from land that is Aboriginal owned. Today at enterprise level and regionally throughout the Northern Territory, northern Western Australia and northern Queensland, we see outstanding examples of Aboriginal employment and participation. In remote regions of our country employment of Aboriginal Australians in the mining industry has increased by 71 per cent for males and an astonishing 307 per cent for females over the period 2006 to 2011. Today in the Northern Territory approximately 30 per cent of Aboriginal lands are under exploration or in negotiation for exploration, and we could see that proportion rise. I hope we do. When we see it rise, we will see it rise because of the property rights that are implicit in the operation of the land rights act in the Northern Territory—in the way in which the land councils work with project proponents, supported by their communities, engaging in the interests of their communities to create an economic livelihood that creates income, that creates opportunity, that creates better health and that creates better outcomes because of the strength of decisions that were made in this place by previous governments dating back to the 1970s but carrying the torch of good public policy and good public administration that have benefited Aboriginal people for near on 40 years.
So I speak on a bill that not only improves the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act but also improves on the nature of the property rights that attach to it. It expands the capacity and the operations of this act into numerous other townships and creates the capacity for leasing, transferring and subleasing such land. The creators of the framework of that legislation were the Whitlam and Fraser governments. Passing through the tumultuous and unpleasant period of the early 1980s, when the Uluru debate took place, we find ourselves now, some decades later, proudly proclaiming not just the validity of this legislation but also the profound economic impact that we have when we create land rights, respect decisions made by Aboriginal people and seek informed consent from Aboriginal people. That informed consent brings with it economic rights and obligations. It brings with it the dignity of engagement from our great companies, our great mining and resource companies, but also increasingly tourism operators who are looking at bringing tourism opportunities into remote and regional Australia to explain and showcase our Indigenous cultures in a way that creates good jobs on country, good careers, great livelihoods and careers that are transferable to other locations. We see a range of opportunities that grow from the courage of people who, in this parliament over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, made decisions to give rights and benefits and to recognise ownership of land. They courageously underpinned that with legislation that has survived and is able to be amended and improved in this way.
I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the minister and the government for bringing it forward. As I reflect back on those bitter days of the battles of the mid-1980s on the proposition of providing Aboriginal control of lands with which they have cultural connection and over which they have rights, I can only feel in myself, as I reflect on the people who fought these battles through the 1970s and who gathered and celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Uluru decision recently, that the fine thoughts and aspirations have indeed been borne out, even though for a short time in the early 1980s it looked like the darker angels of our nature would prevail once again.
This bill will go through this House and the other place without opposition and with the complete support of our parliament, as it should. I congratulate the government on bringing this legislation forward.
It is a privilege to provide the summing up of this amendment bill which we have been debating today, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. I thank all those honourable members for their contributions: the member for Blair, the member for Lingiari, the member for Brand and the member for Berowra.
This bill, which makes amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, will empower Indigenous landowners and community members with localised decision-making about the use of their land. It offers the opportunity to resolve tenure issues and streamline land council operations to promote land owners and community members playing an integral role in fostering economic development in their communities.
By enabling the Executive Director of Township Leasing to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land and to transfer that sublease to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation, this bill enables the settlement of a sublease at the community of Mutitjulu. This will work to resolve tenure issues and will open up the Mutitjulu community to take advantage of the unique economic development opportunities offered by its location in close proximity to one of Australia's most visited World Heritage sites, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.
By improving how the Northern Territory land councils delegate their functions and powers to Aboriginal corporations, this bill removes deterrents and encourages delegations to be made. This will streamline the operations of land councils and bolster localised decision-making, and it will reap economic benefits for Indigenous communities, with decisions made at a local level in commercial time frames.
By providing for a clear process to vary the administrative boundaries of existing land councils, this bill will enable the resolution of agreements between land councils to ensure the most logical and culturally appropriate arrangements for the administration of Aboriginal land are in place.
Finally, this bill meets this government's commitment to return Aboriginal land to Aboriginal people by scheduling three parcels of land. This will allow for the granting of those parcels of land to the land trusts and the resolution of three significant land claims in the Simpson Desert, in the Wickham River area, and on and around the Vernon Islands.
On behalf of the government and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I would like to thank the Northern Territory land councils for their partnership in developing this bill. It is a testament to our relationship and joint commitment to empower Indigenous landowners and improve outcomes for Indigenous communities. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (11), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2), after the Schedule heading, insert:
Part 1—Amendments
(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 17, insert:
17A After section 21D
Insert:
21E Variation of boundaries
Request
(1) Two Land Councils may, by joint written notice given to the Minister, request the Minister to vary the boundaries of the areas of the Councils, so that a specified area:
(a) ceases to be part of the area of one of those Councils; and
(b) becomes part of the area of the other Council.
(2) A Land Council must not make a request under subsection (1) unless the Council is satisfied that:
(a) the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land in the specified area understand the nature and purpose of the proposed variation and, as a group, consent to it; and
(b) any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the proposed variation has been consulted and has had adequate opportunity to express its view to the Council.
Variation
(3) If the Minister receives a request under subsection (1), the Minister may, by writing, vary the boundaries of the areas of the Land Councils in accordance with the request.
Publication
(4) The Minister must publish an instrument under subsection (3) in the Gazette.
Notice not a legislative instrument
(5) An instrument under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.
(3) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17A, insert:
17B After paragraph 28(1)(c)
Insert:
(ca) the making of a request under section 21E;
17C Before paragraph 28(2)(a)
Insert:
(aa) the making of a request under section 21E;
(4) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17C, insert:
17D At the end of paragraph 28(3)(b)
Add ", except subsection (4) of that section".
17E At the end of subsection 28(3)
Add:
; (e) section 68 (about roads over Aboriginal land);
(f) subsection 70(4) (about access agreements);
and the Council may also delegate to the corporation the Council's other functions and powers, so far as they are associated with the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, that is:
(g) conferred by a provision mentioned in any of the above paragraphs; and
(h) covered by the delegation.
(5) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17E, insert:
17F Paragraph 28A(2)(b)
After "Council", insert "(the relevant part)".
17G After paragraph 28A(2)(b)
Insert:
(ba) set out the names of the corporation's members; and
(bb) set out evidence that a majority of the members of the corporation are either:
(i) the traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the relevant part; or
(ii) Aboriginals who live in the relevant part; and
(bc) set out the reason the corporation seeks the delegation; and
(bd) set out the reason the corporation selected the relevant part; and
(be) set out a description of any consultation by the corporation with the following persons in relation to the delegation:
(i) traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the relevant part;
(ii) any other Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the delegation; and
(bf) set out a description of any conflict of interest arrangements the corporation has in place; and
(bg) set out the qualifications and experience of:
(i) the corporation's officers (within the meaning of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006); and
(ii) the corporation's employees (within the meaning of that Act);
that are relevant to the delegation; and
(bh) set out how the corporation proposes to make decisions in relation to the delegated functions or powers, including any proposed ongoing consultation with the persons mentioned in paragraph (be); and
(bi) set out an estimate of the resources required to perform or exercise the delegated functions or powers; and
(bj) set out the following breakdown of the resources mentioned in paragraph (bi):
(i) resources the corporation has at its disposal;
(ii) resources the corporation proposes to obtain from the Council;
(iii) resources the corporation proposes to obtain from another source, and the name of that source; and
17H At the end of subsection 28A(2)
Add:
; and (d) be accompanied by:
(i) a copy of the general report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(ii) a copy of the financial report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iii) a copy of the directors' report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iv) if the financial report mentioned in subparagraph (ii) has been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006a copy of the auditor's report.
Note: Examples of resources for paragraphs (bi) and (bj) are money, employees, premises and equipment.
17J After subsection 28A(2)
Insert:
(2A) The Council must give the Minister a copy of the application.
17K Subsection 28A(4) (note)
Repeal the note.
17L Subsections 28A(5) and (6)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Time limit
(5) The Council must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a decision is made on the application within:
(a) 6 months after the day the application was made; or
(b) if a longer period is agreed in writing by the corporation—that period.
(6) If a longer period is agreed under paragraph (5)(b), the Council must notify the Minister, in writing, of the agreement.
(6) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17L, insert:
17M Subsections 28B(1) to (3)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
(1) If a delegation by a Land Council is in force under subsection 28(3) in relation to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation, the Council may, in writing, vary or revoke the delegation:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) in accordance with a request or application made by the corporation.
(2) Before varying or revoking a delegation on its own initiative, the Council must consult the corporation concerned.
17N Subsection 28B(4)
Omit "The corporation may", substitute "If a delegation by a Land Council is in force under subsection 28(3) in relation to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation, the corporation may".
17P After subsection 28B(4)
Insert:
(4A) The application must:
(a) set out the names of the corporation's members; and
(b) set out evidence that a majority of the members of the corporation are either:
(i) the traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the part of the area of the Council in respect of which the corporation will, if the variation is made, be able to perform the delegated functions or exercise the delegated powers; or
(ii) Aboriginals who live in that part; and
(c) set out the reason the corporation seeks the variation; and
(d) if the variation is to increase the part of the area of the Council in respect of which the corporation wants to perform functions or exercise powers—set out:
(i) the areal extent of the increase; and
(ii) the reason the corporation selected that areal extent; and
(e) set out a description of any consultation by the corporation with the following persons in relation to the variation:
(i) traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the part of the area of the Council affected by the variation;
(ii) any other Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the variation; and
(f) set out a description of any conflict of interest arrangements the corporation has in place; and
(g) set out the qualifications and experience of:
(i) the corporation's officers (within the meaning of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006); and
(ii) the corporation's employees (within the meaning of that Act);
that are relevant to the variation; and
(h) set out how the corporation proposes to make decisions in relation to the functions or powers covered by the variation, including any proposed ongoing consultation with the persons mentioned in paragraph (e); and
(i) set out an estimate of the resources required to perform or exercise the functions or powers covered by the variation; and
(j) set out the following breakdown of the resources mentioned in paragraph (i):
(i) resources the corporation has at its disposal;
(ii) resources the corporation proposes to obtain from the Council;
(iii) resources the corporation proposes to obtain from another source, and the name of that source; and
(k) contain any other information prescribed by the regulations; and
(l) be accompanied by:
(i) a copy of the general report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(ii) a copy of the financial report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iii) a copy of the directors' report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iv) if the financial report mentioned in subparagraph (ii) has been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006a copy of the auditor's report.
Note: Examples of resources for paragraphs (i) and (j) are money, employees, premises and equipment.
(4B) The Council may, by writing, exempt the corporation from compliance with any or all of the requirements set out in subsection (4A) in relation to the application.
(4C) The Council must give the Minister a copy of the application.
17Q Subsection 28B(5) (note)
Repeal the note.
17R Subsections 28B(6) to (11)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
(6) The Council must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a decision is made on the application within:
(a) 6 months after the day the application was made; or
(b) if a longer period is agreed in writing by the corporation—that period.
(7) If a longer period is agreed under paragraph (6)(b), the Council must notify the Minister, in writing, of the agreement.
(7) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17R, insert:
17S Section 28C
Repeal the section.
(8) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17S, insert:
17T Section 28D
Repeal the section.
(9) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 17T, insert:
17U At the end of section 28F
Add:
; and (d) give a written statement of the corporation's reasons for the decision, upon request, to any person or body affected by the decision; and
(e) if the corporation gives a statement to a person or body under paragraph (d)—give a copy of the statement to the Council.
(10) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 23), after item 19, insert:
19A Part 4 of Schedule 1 (after the item relating to Urrpantyenye)
Insert:
VERNON ISLANDS
All those parcels of land being Northern Territory Portions 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 delineated on Survey Plan S.2015/208 lodged with the Surveyor-General, Darwin, and together containing an area of approximately 8,271.2 hectares.
(11) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 2—Application and transitional provisions
21 Application of amendments etc.—delegation by Land Council
(1) The amendments of subsection 28A(2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 made by this Schedule apply to an application made after the commencement of this item.
(2) Subsection 28A(2A) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) applies to an application made after the commencement of this item.
(3) If:
(a) an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation made an application to a Land Council under subsection 28A(1) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 within 12 months before the commencement of this item; and
(b) the Council had neither:
(i) made the delegation concerned; nor
(ii) refused to make the delegation;
before the commencement of this item;
then:
(c) subject to subitems (4) to (8), the corporation must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this item, give the Council:
(i) a statement containing the information that would have been required under paragraphs 28A(2)(ba) to (bj) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) to have been included in the application if those paragraphs had been in force at the time the application was made; and
(ii) a copy of the general report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iii) a copy of the financial report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iv) a copy of the directors' report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(v) if the financial report mentioned in subparagraph (iii) has been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006a copy of the auditor's report; and
(d) subsections 28A(5) and (6) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) apply to the application as if the reference in paragraph 28A(5)(a) of that Act to the day the application was made were a reference to:
(i) the day this item commences; or
(ii) if the corporation is subject to any requirements under paragraph (c) of this subitem—the day the corporation complies with those requirements.
(4) Subparagraph (3)(c)(i) does not apply to particular information if:
(a) the application contained the information; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item, the corporation gave the information to the Land Council.
(5) Subparagraph (3)(c)(ii) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the general report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(6) Subparagraph (3)(c)(iii) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the financial report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(7) Subparagraph (3)(c)(iv) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the directors' report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(8) Subparagraph (3)(c)(v) does not apply if the financial report mentioned in subitem (6) had been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, and:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the auditor's report.
22 Application of amendments etc.—variation of delegation by Land Council
(1) The amendment of subsection 28B(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 made by this Schedule applies to an application made after the commencement of this item.
(2) Subsections 28B(4A), (4B) and (4C) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) apply to an application made after the commencement of this item.
(3) If:
(a) an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation made an application to a Land Council under subsection 28B(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 within 12 months before the commencement of this item; and
(b) the Council had neither:
(i) varied the delegation concerned; nor
(ii) refused to vary the delegation;
before the commencement of this item;
then:
(c) subject to subitems (4) to (9), the corporation must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this item, give the Council:
(i) a statement containing the information that would have been required under paragraphs 28B(4A)(a) to (j) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) to be included in the application if subsection 28B(4A) of that Act had been in force at the time the application was made; and
(ii) a copy of the general report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iii) a copy of the financial report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(iv) a copy of the directors' report that the corporation has most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006; and
(v) if the financial report mentioned in subparagraph (iii) has been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006a copy of the auditor's report; and
(d) subsections 28B(6) and (7) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (as amended by this Act) apply to the application as if the reference in paragraph 28B(6)(a) of that Act to the day the application was made were a reference to:
(i) the day this item commences; or
(ii) if the corporation is subject to any requirements under paragraph (c) of this subitem—the day the corporation complies with those requirements.
(4) Subparagraph (3)(c)(i) does not apply to particular information if:
(a) the application contained the information; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item, the corporation gave the information to the Land Council.
(5) Subparagraph (3)(c)(ii) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the general report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(6) Subparagraph (3)(c)(iii) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the financial report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(7) Subparagraph (3)(c)(iv) does not apply if:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the directors' report that the corporation had most recently lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
(8) Subparagraph (3)(c)(v) does not apply if the financial report mentioned in subitem (6) had been audited as required under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, and:
(a) at the time when the application was made; or
(b) after the application was made, but before the commencement of this item;
the corporation gave the Land Council a copy of the auditor's report.
(9) The Land Council may, by writing, exempt the corporation from compliance with any or all of the requirements set out in paragraph (3)(c).
23 Transitional—delegation by Land Council
Scope
(1) This item applies to an instrument of delegation that:
(a) was made by a Land Council under subsection 28(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; and
(b) was in force immediately before the commencement of this item; and
(c) relates to the Land Council's functions or powers under section 19 of that Act.
Transitional
(2) The amendment of paragraph 28(3)(b) of that Act made by this Schedule does not affect the continuity of the delegation.
(3) After the commencement of this item, the delegation does not apply to the Land Council's power under subsection 19(4) of that Act.
It will come as some surprise to you, but the opposition will be supporting these amendments—which, I might say, I am very pleased to do. And I apologise because in my initial contribution I forgot to recognise the Vernon Islands. The traditional owners of the Vernon Islands would not be happy! So I want to recognise again that the Vernon Islands will be added to schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act. What these amendments will do is allow the land councils to vary their administrative areas. For this to occur, the relevant land councils must request a variation. In this particular instance it is important because it will enable the implementation of agreed settlement arrangements for the Vernon Islands land claim, which required the transfer of the land subject to claim from the jurisdiction of the Northern Land Council to that of the Tiwi Land Council—and that, of itself, is quite important. I commend that particular amendment for its common sense, and I am of the view that the traditional owners will see this as very damn good—and that is a very good thing.
I now want to go briefly to the amendments relating to Mutitjulu. The member for Brand, in his contribution, made a very good speech outlining the economic benefits of land rights to the Northern Territory and Australia and the importance of development on Aboriginal land. Uluru is an iconic cultural heritage place, as well as being environmentally very important, and it is internationally recognised as such. But historically the Anangu traditional owners have not done well out of it despite the fact that upwards of 300,000 people a year—certainly in the past—visit Uluru, and a proportion of the gate entry fee has gone back to the traditional owners. When the land was first transferred, there was not a great relationship between the tourism community and the traditional owners; in fact, there was quite a bit of tension. So, for a whole range of historical reasons, the economic benefits which could have been derived were not.
This piece of legislation is a way of putting a few things right. It is very clear that the Anangu want to be engaged in a way they probably were not engaged 30 years ago and see the benefits derived from this tourism icon, and the Yalara resort, permeate through their communities. That is a challenge; nevertheless, it is very important. What this piece of legislation will do is that, as a result of the leasing arrangements for Mutitjulu, the traditional owners of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park will benefit from further social and commercial process by gaining control of subleases on their land. The Anangu can maintain care of their country which, as I explained earlier, is so pivotal to their inheritance and life, and they can promote activities that share their country with national and international visitors in an environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate way. The bill provides for the Aboriginals Benefit Account funds in support of these corporations to which the director of township leasing transfers the sublease. And that is quite important because there needs to be provision of finance to support those relationships. I again commend the legislation that the government has put forward, and the opposition is happy to support the amendments.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
It is a fact of life in 2015 that governments must be constantly vigilant about safety and security in transport systems. This is especially the case with aviation. Anyone who remembers the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001 will understand the horrible consequences of a terrorist attack on an aircraft. Travellers know only too well the levels of security checks that have become necessary in this day and age. Nobody likes the inconvenience, nobody likes the queues, but we all know that this is a serious business. Our approach must be based upon the principle of safety first, and it is not only about aircraft passengers. We need to ensure that our systems for handling air cargo are also up to date and efficient. And we have to balance that security requirement against the need to keep goods moving in the name of efficiency and productivity. The time involved in checking cargo is significant.
The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill seeks to grapple with the need to carefully balance the competing needs of public safety as well as keeping our economy moving. The opposition will be supporting this legislation because we believe it is in the public interest. The impetus for this particular change has its roots in our relationship with the United States of America. US law requires that all airlines transporting cargo into the US inspect each and every item, piece by piece. The US has noted that existing arrangements in Australia do not meet that standard. As a result, Australia has negotiated a two-year transition period, during which we will move to satisfy the US requirements.
This bill seeks to make industry a partner in this process, to smooth out the process in consultation with industry, as is appropriate. It establishes a Known Consignor category in the transport security regulatory network. This invests the responsibility to screen cargo with the shipper or originator of the goods and establishes a system that maintains security across the supply chain. It will mean that cargo handled by a Known Consignor will not need to be inspected at an airport. It is a case of working with industry to secure a positive outcome that maintains safety whilst boosting efficiency. In addition to this piece of legislation, the transition to a US-compliant system is already under way. Some businesses have already been approved to conduct their own security checks, away from airports, removing the need for double-handling at those airports.
I have said many times, in this place, as the minister for transport in the previous government and as shadow minister for transport now, that aviation security should be a non-partisan issue. We can have our arguments here about policy, about ideology and about politics. But when it comes to securing the safety of the travelling public, we should be on a unity ticket and we should take the advice of safety and security experts. Our joint policy of both the government and the opposition is safety first. Labor can always be relied upon to take seriously matters to do with aviation.
I was the minister during what became known as the 'undie bomber' incident all those years ago. I well recall the meetings over that Christmas and New Year period, where the world responded quickly and in a coordinated way to the perceived threat. I know from my experience in government that Minister Truss has also taken those responsibilities seriously. Whether in his current position as the minister or as shadow minister he has acted in a mature and responsible way. This is good legislation and I commend the bill to the House.
I welcome the member for Grayndler's constructive comments on this bill and his emphasis on public safety and economic benefit derived from important initiatives, such as this Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015. A recent re-evaluation of Australia's air cargo security arrangements to the United States determined that they do not meet the required standards. This is part of the background to this bill, which I will now outline.
The United States requires by law that all airlines transporting cargo on passenger flights must examine 100 per cent of that air cargo at piece level. As such, the coalition government introduced this bill to ensure that Australian air cargo meets the security requirements for air cargo exports to the United States in the future. In terms of air freight and cargo, it is relevant for all states in Australia and all airports around Australia, particularly those larger ones. In my electorate of Hindmarsh I have Adelaide Airport—hence, the airport plays a significant role in the local economy and in my electorate, whether it be people employed at the airport or businesses surrounding the airport.
In terms of the details of this bill, this means that each individual box, carton or other item in a shipment must be examined by technology or physically inspected before it is loaded onto a United States bound aircraft. As the member for Grayndler mentioned, airport security is of paramount importance—more so with the terrorism we have had to confront not just over the last few years but back to September 11, almost 15 years ago. That is a bit of history for you, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, that I am sure you are aware of, being the knowledgeable man that you are.
The amendments proposed in this bill support our efforts to meet the US security requirements. Importantly, we are partnering with industry to implement the new security requirements. This strategy has two elements that will allow exporters to choose the most effective methods for their businesses. As we know, export and trade are important elements of our economy as we seek to service the growth economies of the world not just in Asia but also in the US, which is often the strongest economy in the world and will continue to rebound, no matter what financial and economic challenges it faces.
The first part of the strategy is already being implemented with a number of businesses examining cargo, at piece level, by X-ray before it gets to the airport cargo terminal. The second part of the strategy is being supported by amendments in the bill that create the legal authority for the establishment of a Known Consignor scheme. While this bill will make sure that Australia's $4.8 billion worth of air freight exports to the United States can continue, the Australian government has secured an agreement with the United States that recognition of our national cargo security program be extended to July 2017. This means that Australian air cargo to the United States can continue without disruption while transitioning to the new arrangements.
This bill also ensures that our air security arrangements are consistent with international standards under the Chicago convention. The strategy not only meets the requirements of the United States; it also meets anticipated requirements of our trading partners. If these measures are not implemented, industry will have no choice about how to meet the new security requirements set by the United States, as the Transport Security Administration has made it very clear that it will not accept air cargo unless all of it is screened at piece level. The Australian government has an ongoing commitment to ensuring the security and safety of Australians and Australia's interests. We also remain committed to maintaining and growing Australia's international trade.
In terms of trade, I want to return to speaking about Adelaide Airport for a moment and some interesting figures from the last 15 years. Adelaide Airport has increased the number of international passengers four times, and total passenger numbers have doubled over that time. So congratulations to Adelaide Airport and all involved for the significant success they have had over the last 15 years. In terms of freight and cargo, the topic of this bill, over 8,000 tonnes of freight are exported from Adelaide Airport every year—over $400 million. This is significant in its own right, and there is optimism for the future as we seek to export more trade to the fastest economies in the world, and in particular to Asia, utilising the trade agreements.
In terms of the airport I consult with key residential bodies associated with the community who keep in regular contact with me about matters pertaining to their suburbs but also some things that might come up from time to time about the airport. I want to congratulate some of the local residents' associations, like the neighbourhood watch groups who engage constructively, not just with me but also with Adelaide Airport, on ongoing issues that may arise. For example, there is the Netley Residents' association, and Bob Owen makes some positive contributions there about how to improve the local area around Netley. I want to commend Bob and the Netley Residents' association on their important role.
One example that came up recently was about a parcel of land which was located next to a creek and which the airport, SA Water, the local water authority, and the council all had a role in maintaining. The parcel of land had some issues with snakes and a local children's playground. After some conversations between all stakeholders, it was resolved to amend the maintenance of the land and the way it was constructed. I want to congratulate all parties on that very constructive outcome. Attending the Netley Residents' association recently, I found they had a strong interest in many local issues. I congratulate them again for their good work. They are committed to a better community and they work to engage key stakeholders.
I also attended the Camden Park Neighbourhood Watch group last Monday night. They are another good local association that takes interest in issues affecting their area. They are close to the airport. They do not have as many issues with the airport as some other associations do but they still play a very constructive role on local matters, whether they be crime related, safety related or general wellbeing in the community. They asked some very good questions last week. So I congratulate Rosalie and the committee on the good work they are doing, and I look forward to supporting them further in the future.
On neighbourhood watch, I want to mention Lockleys Neighbourhood Watch, which borders the airport, and is very active on many local issues, including noise and traffic at the airport. I have had a number of conversations with key members of that committee. They turned 30 in recent times and had their 30th birthday celebration last weekend. Unfortunately, I was unable to make it but I wish them well and look forward to further engagement with that body. I congratulate the local councillors involved in that association—in particular, Rosalie Haese and Garth Palmer for the good work that they do with the Lockleys Residents' association as they do with Reedbeds, West Beach Neighbourhood Watch and the many other residents' associations in the area. They are all surrounding the airport and have links to the airport. With that, I end my contribution to this debate. I thank my colleagues for their contributions as well, and I commend this bill to the House.
Thank you to the member. It is always a good idea to compliment the Deputy Speaker, as you did during your speech. I call the member for Lyons.
I appreciate the opportunity. Like the member for Hindmarsh, I also have pleasure in rising to speak on this bill, which relates to something that is important to pretty well all of us in this place, and that is trade and access to markets. This legislation, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015, specifically relates to air freight. Specifically, it is a measure that the Australian government has had no choice but to implement, given the requirements that have been put in place by the United States government in terms of an obligation that we now have; if we want to trade with that very important market, we must have the capacity to scan every container—every box—that leaves Australia that is destined for the United States. One hundred per cent of all the parcels will need to be X-rayed before they leave Australia.
There are two mechanisms by which this can occur. One is off-airport examination of cargo by approved freight forwarding businesses. That is one option for exporters. The second option is the establishment of a known consigner scheme that export businesses can join. Both of those mechanisms will provide the opportunity for businesses that are currently trading. Indeed, we would hope that, as the quality of Australian produce all around the world is increasingly understood, there would be more opportunities for more goods from this country to enter the US market.
You will be interested to note that it does have no impact on the US free trade agreement and the criteria under which that was signed. You may also be interested to note that there was $4.8 billion worth of Australian produce and goods exported by air to the United States last year. Whilst they are an obligation now, as a requirement set by the United States, it is logical that we undertake these changes locally—in effect, pre-planning for other countries that may well, in due course, require similar requirements. I think particularly of the possibilities that may occur under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that has been concluded as the fourth leg of the quadrella by the Minister for Trade and Investment. With the 12 countries involved in that, and given the initiative that the United States has taken in this space, it is likely that there will be others in due course. It applies not just to Australia, of course, but to all countries that wish to export goods into the USA. So it is not, in any way, discriminatory. Their reasons are, of course, based around the legitimate concerns that, as citizens of the world, we all have with respect to security.
This gives me a chance to ponder the events that occurred in Paris, 'The City of Light', in the past week and how—although one would hope that it would not do—it has really changed the world in such a profound way. It was a senseless attack not just on those who were tragically killed and or tragically injured but on humanity. From whatever quarter you come from around the globe, whatever your faith, whatever your colour, there is a fundamental thing that makes us all human beings. I think that was challenged by these evil people who seek to divide. It has been reassuring to see right across this country and the world an absolute condemnation of what was an attack, ultimately, on humanity. We cannot stand for that.
The capacity to respond in a timely manner also provides a competitive advantage for our country at this juncture. We will certainly be looking to take advantage of that. I think specifically of my home state of Tasmania. I think particularly of the expansions occurring in our two major airports. There are, of course, other airport facilities up on the north-west coast of Tasmania, at Devonport and Wynyard in the electorate of my colleague the member for Braddon. Launceston Airport, it may surprise you to know, is actually in the Northern Midlands in the electorate of Lyons. It was very encouraging in recent weeks to hear an announcement that Launceston Airport was now part of a code-sharing arrangement. That arrangement will allow passengers travelling from China with China Eastern Airlines to have electronic tickets right through to Launceston. This is going to present an enormous advantage for passengers who may want to visit the place where their President and his wife, Madam Peng Liyuan, took time to visit in our state last year. So it will make it easier for those people looking to follow in the footsteps of President Xi Jinping and his wife. Also, it provides an opportunity that has been apparent in other parts of the world, particularly the Middle East, concerning the bellies of these aircraft as they head back to their point of origin. In this case, with China, opportunities will open up for trade and for food and other products to be taken back to those markets. Most evident to me recently was the experience of Tasmanian Quality Meats, a business in the Northern Midlands. It is a business that has grown. It was the Australian Regional Exporter of the Year in 2013. It has built a business in more recent years very much on the changing path of aircraft travelling via the Middle East into European destinations. The business has grown enormously in terms of being able to supply chilled meat and other similar products into that important Middle East market. Of course, these are opportunities that also lay in North America.
The undertaking by the government to put in place the necessary facilities for off-airport examination of cargo by approved freight-forwarding businesses and the establishment of known consignors—a recognised scheme internationally—will come as no surprise to those companies involved in freight-forwarding and other things. For Australian exporters—and I think particularly of my home state and producers of berries, horticultural products more broadly and seafood—I am sure there are willing customers. They may not yet know it, but in due course they will be very excited customers when they realise that they can source such high-quality and excellent produce from the island state—the south island, as we sometimes refer to it.
On that note, this is a necessary but important piece of legislation to put in place those things that are required by that important market in the United States to make sure that our exporters have the opportunity to supply high-quality goods to that market on an ongoing basis. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
It is my great pleasure to join the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015. I congratulate the member for Lyons on his contribution. I listened with great interest; I always listen with great interest when my southern colleagues from Tasmania have something to say. We are almost neighbours; only Bass Strait stands between us.
Indeed!
You live in a particularly beautiful part of Australia, and I look forward to visiting in the near future.
The Australian government clearly has a key responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests. Also, most obviously, the federal government has a responsibility in relation to international trade and our nation's economic links, and this government, to its great credit, has put jobs and economic security, along with national security, at the very core of its being. From time to time—and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, you have experienced it yourself in your own beautiful electorate in Western Australia—there is some level of confusion amongst perhaps primary school or secondary school students or even some constituents who are not entirely sure what level of government is responsible for each particular area of public interest in Australia. But there is no confusion whatsoever when it comes to state and federal responsibilities for international trade or national security or defence more generally. So it is with great pleasure that I participate in tonight's debate, because it deals directly with issues relating to safety and security as well as our trade interests in a global sense.
Safety and security through our airports, whether through the safety of passengers on board aircraft, which the member for Lyons referred to previously, or cargo and freight screening more generally, has been an area that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in this place. Understandably, no government, whether of the Labor Party persuasion or from the Liberal-Nationals coalition, would seek to score political points on issues of aviation security. So I am pleased that this is a non-controversial piece of legislation that has the support of those opposite and obviously has the support of the Liberal and Nationals parties.
I do note and commend the previous government's work in the area of aviation security screening procedures, where it did make some changes as they became necessary. No government necessarily knows in advance what is going to be expected of it in a changing security environment or in response to requests made by some of our trading partners. While responding to the circumstances and conditions in which we live and maintaining the safety of the passengers and crews on commercial flights is one of those critical issues, we must also provide the same level of security to our cargo operations.
I commend the Minister for Transport and my colleague the Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, on bringing this legislation to the chamber, because it provides some certainty for Australian businesses operating in an international environment. A recent re-evaluation of Australia's air cargo security arrangements to the United States determined that they do not meet the required standards. The United States—obviously one of our nation's most important trading partners and one of our most strategic alliances in terms of the defence force, in which I am directly engaged, and with whom we have a highly valued relationship—requires, by law, that all airlines transporting cargo on passenger flights must examine 100 per cent of that air cargo at piece level.
Thus the coalition government, with the support of those opposite, introduced this bill, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015). The bill will ensure that Australian air cargo meets the security requirements for air cargo exports to the United States in the future. This will mean, quite importantly, that each individual item of freight, whether a box, a carton or another item in a shipment, must be examined by technology or physically inspected before it is loaded onto a United States bound aircraft. And as the member for Lyons quite correctly indicated in his contribution here this evening, there are options for how you fulfil those legislative requirements.
The amendments proposed in the bill before the House this evening support our efforts to meet the US security requirements. Importantly, the government is not acting alone in this regard. We are partnering with industry to implement the new security requirements over the coming years. The strategy, as we have heard this evening, has two distinct elements which will allow exporters to choose the most effective method for their individual businesses. There will be the opportunity for an off-airport examination of cargo by approved freight forwarding businesses and also the establishment of what is called a known consignor scheme that export businesses can join.
The first part of the strategy is already being implemented, with a number of businesses examining cargo at piece level by X-ray before it gets to the airport cargo terminal, therefore removing the need for screening at the airport. The second part of the strategy is being supported by amendments in the bill which create the legal authority for the establishment of the known consignor scheme. As I said, the government has an ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests. We also remain committed to maintaining and growing Australia's international trade interests. On that point, without any hesitation I indicate that the current government, the government for the past two years, under the prime ministership of Tony Abbott and now under the prime ministership of Malcolm Turnbull and the leadership shown by Andrew Robb, the trade minister, has been very successful in negotiating trade outcomes with China, Japan and Korea, which are of particular importance to my electorate and I am sure yours in Western Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. The three free trade agreements—but, more specifically, the Chinese free trade agreement—are of great benefit to the dairy sector in Gippsland.
It may not be well known, but the dairy industry in Gippsland produces in the order of 23 per cent of Australia's total dairy product. There is an ongoing argument between myself and the member for Wannon over which electorate produces the most of Australia's total dairy productions. It turns out they both produce 23 per cent, which is somewhat disappointing for myself and the member for Wannon as we are competitive in a whole range of pursuits, from marathon running through to our praise of our own electorates, and it turns out we have tie on this occasion.
The free trade agreement negotiated with China is going to be very significant for the Australian dairy industry. A few weeks ago I had the great opportunity of attending a suppliers meeting, held by Murray Goulburn, in my electorate on the banks of the Snowy River at Marlo. The chief executive officer of Murray Goulbourn, Gary Helou, was particularly enthusiastic in his praise of the government's ability to negotiate a trade agreement with China which will provide enormous opportunities for Murray Goulburn into the future. I raise that point in relation to tonight's debate regarding aviation cargo freight security for a very important reason: the dairy industry is changing. It has been very much a community based industry, with bulk product through the Port of Melbourne, but there are ambitions within the dairy sector to grow the ready-to-eat food products which will have a high yield, particularly into Asian markets and into markets where we have a growing middle class which values very highly the Australian product. I believe there will be more opportunities in the future to transport the dairy products through the aviation sector.
It is important that we get our security arrangements right, and that is why tonight's bill is significant for the people of Gippsland, even though we do not have an airport of that capacity at the moment. That is something that we are aiming to address. I thank the minister for transport who was in Gippsland last week. He is a keen aviation enthusiast and he took the opportunity to come to Gippsland and inspect and officially open some improvements to the Latrobe Valley airport. It was a significant occasion. It means the Latrobe Valley is now well set up to become more of an aviation hub into the future. I congratulate the minister for taking the time out of his very busy schedule to visit Gippsland and gain a firsthand appreciation of the local community's interest in growing its aviation infrastructure, but also in looking for opportunities to further boost my region's economy.
The project we unveiled was a $4.24 million project. It involved $3 million worth of federal government funding, plus some assistance from the Victorian state government. It created more than 100 jobs during the construction phase. It is important because the Gippsland region is home to, I think, the only manufacturer of commercial aircraft in Australia, GippsAero, which has been producing the GA8 Airvan, known as the 'Ute of the Sky' for its capacity to carry a significant amount of cargo. It is manufactured right alongside the Latrobe Valley airport, which was upgraded with that federal and state government funding. The extent of the upgrade was very significant: it allowed for improved lighting, which is obviously significant in the aviation sector; it allowed for the development of additional aircraft hangars; and also allowed for infrastructure to support the manufacturing, as I referred to, and the emergency services which operate out of the airport.
We saw bushfires in the Gippsland region only last week. The capacity to base firefighting aircraft in the Latrobe Valley, in a central location, is critical. We rely very heavily on our aerial firefighting capacity and without the Latrobe Valley airport we would be in a very difficult circumstance. We have, quite possibly, the most important infrastructure in Victoria with the Latrobe Valley power stations, and we have the Australian Paper Mill, all located in close proximity of the Latrobe Valley airport. All those assets are exposed to the threat of bushfire and it is important to be able to rapidly deploy aerial firefighting aircraft, and that is one of the great advantages of having a centrally located airport like Latrobe Valley airport. I really appreciate the efforts made by the previous government in supporting some funding upgrades, the current government for actually delivering on those upgrades and the Victorian coalition government, which provided $1.24 million for the project as well.
I mentioned the Gippsland Airvan and it is appropriate to reflect a little bit further on that particular aircraft in the context of tonight's debate because the aviation sector is a critical part of regional Australia. Obviously we have a vast country and the tyranny of distance often works against us, but the capacity to move freight in a rapid manner and to move it safely, as described in this bill, is extraordinarily important to us, whether it is in the cities or in regional areas like Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. I am very proud to have an aircraft manufacturer operating out of my electorate. It is based in the Latrobe Valley and it started in the 1970s. It was founded by Peter Furlong and George Morgan, and has been going ever since. There have been some ups and downs—and that was not meant to be a pun about aircraft. There have been times when production has been strong and there have been times during the global financial crisis when demand for aircraft dropped dramatically and the company was struggling to maintain its strong presence in the Latrobe Valley. The Airvan 8 and the Airvan 10, which are produced in Gippsland, have been very important for the rural and regional communities because of their capacity to deliver a large payload into some of the smaller regional strips. The company has seen some great growth in the GA8 Airvan since December 2000 and it is now under the ownership of Mahindra Airspace, an Indian based company, but it still employs a significant number of people in Latrobe Valley. That capacity to operate on short airstrips, in pretty basic conditions, for freight and passenger transport is a selling point that the Airvan relies very heavily on. It also has had some success in terms of sales into many parts of the Pacific and throughout Europe and the United States. It is a terrific aircraft for surveillance and it is a terrific aircraft for skydiving and for general aviation. I am keen to see opportunities for the aviation sector to grow in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley and the key to that will be GippsAero and the work we do in partnership with Latrobe City Council on Latrobe Valley airport.
As I said, it is with pleasure that I join tonight's debate, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the government on acting in an appropriate manner in relation to two of the most critical issues that face our nation today. Safety and security—and national security more specifically—are things that we in this place all take very seriously, and that was brought home to us recently with the attacks in Paris and the attack on the Russian airliner.
Aviation security screening procedures, whether they be for the safety of passengers or that of the crews associated with cargo operations, are critical, and I think the measures in this bill will serve our nation well in the future. I congratulate the minister on the work he is doing in this regard and I commend the bill to the House.
It gives me great pleasure tonight to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015. Before I was elected to parliament, one of my jobs when I was working for my small family business was organising the airfreight exports. At that time we were exporting quite a lot to the Middle East, America and South-East Asia, and the reason we had to use airfreight rather than sea freight was that, in the market we were working in, our customers often needed the goods immediately, or we needed to get samples to one of our sales representatives working over in the Middle East as quickly as possible. In all competitive markets, time is money. That is why the airfreight services that we have throughout the nation and the associated infrastructure we have set up to work as efficiently as possible are important to all exporters.
I remember there was always a rush to get goods over to the Middle East, to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, to catch our agent over there, and the Emirates flight at the time used to depart out of Sydney at eight or nine o'clock. So it was always a race in the factory to get the goods off the production lines, get them into the packing department, get them finished and then get them to the airport and on the Emirates flight out that night. A couple of times I had to jump in the truck, or one of the vehicles or wagons, and take the goods down myself. The process was that you would take them firstly to the airfreight forwarder that was handling the consignment and you would organise all the documentation there, they would put all their stickers on, and then either their truck would run them around to the airport at Kingsford Smith or you would take them round yourself. That is something I did several times.
I remember, back then—this was before the attack on the Twin Towers—having some concerns about the security arrangements. Here I was, taking dozens and dozens of boxes directly to the airport. I knew what was inside them, but I thought: how much security did they go through; should our security processes be a bit more stringent? Ultimately, it is a balance between the need for speed, for exporters to get their goods onto those planes as quickly as possible, and the need to have appropriate security checks in place.
That was another age. Today we live in an age of international terrorism where, in almost every Western country in the world, there are people that wish to engage in terrorism and cause us harm. It was just over a fortnight ago that a Russian plane leaving Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt—the coastal resort there—full of holiday-makers and tourists heading back to Russia, came down. It looks like something was possibly smuggled onto that plane in the luggage. These threats are real.
The security arrangements for our airfreight are very important, because something that is not widely known is that most of the airfreight that leaves Australia does not go in the large cargo planes; it actually goes in the belly of passenger aircraft. So airlines flying passengers overseas use the bellies of their 747s and their wide-body jets to carry a lot of freight.
That is why we should continue to have as many open-skies policies as we can, with as many countries as we can. If we can get more people, more tourists, flying between countries and have arrangements with more nations for their airlines to fly into Australia and give us reciprocal rights, then there will be more airlines in the air. The more airlines there are in the air, the more room there is for cargo; the more room there is for cargo, the lower the price is. The freight price comes down. That is essential to many of our exporters, especially in the area of fresh produce, where freight costs become a major component of the price. The more we have open skies, the more planes we have in the air, the more tourists we have coming in and out of the country, the greater our capacity to have airfreight going in and out, the greater the opportunities for exporters, the greater the job opportunities and the greater the prosperity in this nation.
At that time, I was also exporting to the USA. I remember that the USA changed some of their regulations after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. The USA, rightly, for the air cargo going into their nation, have the right to set special arrangements and special requirements, and that is what this bill actually addresses.
The bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to strengthen air-cargo security arrangements to ensure continued access to the US market for Australia's exports. This will be done by establishing a known consignor program, streamlining air cargo clearance and enhancing air cargo examinations. These amendments are required for Australia to meet what are called the peace-level screening requirements of the US Transportation Security Administration, known as the TSA, for Australia's air cargo exports to the USA, which were worth $4.8 billion per annum in 2014. In 2014, $4.8 billion worth of Australian goods were just air freight exports to the USA. I saw one study that said that 25 per cent of all Australian exporters have airfreighted goods to the USA.
The US has confirmed a known consignor scheme involving examination and screening of the cargo at source and an enhanced air cargo examination by technology will be required in the short term—to be operational within two years—to maintain market access to the USA. This bill is required to implement these changes quickly and to give industry time to adjust to the new arrangements. The bill will introduce the concepts of a 'known consignor' and a 'regulated agent' under the act, clarify clearance criteria for cargo and provide an authority for authorised businesses to open and examine air cargo, when required, to prevent unlawful interference to aviation.
There will be some costs to industry for this. It will add a little bit more red tape and more bureaucratic regulations, but, in the environment that we are operating in today, unfortunately these are necessary arrangements. Our air cargo security framework is compliant with the current obligations set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The framework is commensurate with our risk profile. All outbound air cargo must be examined and handled securely before it can be uplifted onto an aircraft. The requirements of the USA's Transport Security Administration go above and beyond the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The government is now working to address the US requirements without imposing a regulatory burden on other export destinations. We can expect other countries to begin moving in the same direction over time. Unfortunately, it is a fact that the US have had to put these regulations in. We would like to think that, sometime in the future, they could reduce them. But the reality is that these regulations are going to be in for quite a long time, and it is more likely that other nations will require very similar regulations to be imposed on airfreight imports into their countries.
The US TSA approved Australia's air cargo security arrangements in 2012. At the time, there was no indication that Australia's current export air cargo security arrangements were considered unacceptable to the TSA. This was the case until the results of their re-evaluation were received in December 2014. This government has responded quickly to the TSA requirements and has successfully negotiated a two-year extension, ensuring that industry has the time to adapt to these new arrangements. The department has already facilitated enhanced air cargo examination by technology at major freight-forwarding facilities, ensuring a percentage of cargo has been examined at a piece level. Furthermore, the department is engaging in the known consignor trials to prepare targeted exporters for transition to the new framework. By focusing on the new proposal on US-bound cargo, the government is limiting the impact of the new security measures on industry. The department is also working with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to harmonise regulatory requirements and leverage existing practices to lower the likely impact.
The previous government's securing of the air cargo supply chain framework required 100 per cent piece-level examination for export cargo, regardless of destination. Piece-level examination means that, where an exporter has a palette of goods and the goods are packed up on the palette—and, depending on the size of the carton, there could be up to 20, 30, 40, 50 or even more cartons on that one particular palette—that palette actually has to be broken down, with every single one of those individual cartons put through a scanning process. This is very costly. It is highly labour intensive. Unfortunately, it is a method that will be required in some cases if we are to keep our air cargo flying to the USA.
In 2014, after a review of the current risk environment for all export air cargo determined the risk to be low to very low, the department developed a lower regulatory and cost model based on enhancing the existing regime. The current proposal to require a 100 per cent piece-level examination for all US bound cargo will not require a wholesale change to the exporter sector. It is a targeted policy setting which will address the TSA requirements to minimise regulatory cost while maintaining important access to the market.
This piece of legislation is important to keep that supply chain operational and functional while also having the security there. The airfreight export industry is one of our most important industries. We need that working efficiently and effectively. If we look to the future, with the three free trade agreements that this government has struck with Korea, Japan and China, the future for goods being exported into those nations is virtually unlimited. This morning, we were at a breakfast with the company Blackmores—the vitamin manufacturer in Australia. They basically said that they can sell as much as they can produce. Their biggest problem at the moment is trying to meet the growing demand from Asia. These are the opportunities that we have for Australian businesses. If businesses are going to make every post a winner with these opportunities, we need an efficient sea freight export system and an efficient airfreight export system. This is exactly what this bill will do.
Over the time I have spent working with many of the freight forwarders involved in the airfreight industry, I have thought what a wonderful job they do and how efficient they are. It is a highly competitive industry and, generally speaking, I would say they give excellent service to this country's manufacturers and exporters. Yes, there is a little more red tape. Yes, there is a little more cost involved for exporters. However, we do have to get that balance right. We need to balance the need for speed—for exporters to get those goods as quickly as they possibly can to their customers and markets—with the risk of security. I wish legislation like this were not necessary; but, unfortunately, in the world that we live in today, it is just one of the things that we have to put up with. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015. As previous speakers have acknowledged, there are very genuine reasons for this legislation. The events concerning the World Trade Centre, as we know very well, prompted the US to require this legislation. It was the 9/11 act that brought about this situation where 100 per cent of all cargo that is being transported on passenger aircraft departing or coming in to US airports is screened. The world was horrified when it saw the events of 9/11. Since then, we have seen continuing terrorist activity. As members before me have pointed out very eloquently, none of us particularly likes the additional red tape or any of the cost that goes with this type of legislation, but it is definitely necessary.
There has been a tranche of legislation whereby the government has taken measures in relation to the ongoing security threats that we as a nation and other parts of the world now face. It is very sobering. When I looked at this legislation and at the events of the last nine days in France and Europe, I saw the ongoing terrorist threat. I even consider the MH370 as one such incident. As we know, it was on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. We are yet to find out exactly what happened to that aircraft. It may or may not have been this type of incident; but, as yet, we do not know. Western Australia has been central in assisting with that search. Australia is doing all it possibly can there.
Public safety, as well as the cargo itself, is something that we cannot afford to take lightly. Given events of recent times right around the world, I do not think there is anyone who takes the issue of safety, particularly air safety and air cargo safety, lightly. It is on that basis that the government has introduced this bill. When we talk about our trade opportunities, in no way do we want to compromise the opportunities of our growers, producers and manufacturers—all of those who are seeking to trade right around the world—through not only the three free trade agreements but also the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The other issue that was raised which I think people do not understand terribly well is that so much of the cargo that exits goes out in the belly of a passenger aircraft. That is another reason why the level of security as required in this bill is so important. A recent re-evaluation of Australia's air cargo security arrangements determined that they do not meet the standards that the US requires. After 9/11 they were the requirements placed by the US. By law all airlines transporting cargo on passenger flights are required to be examined—100 per cent of the cargo, and rightly so. We have seen far too many incidents to take this issue lightly. Others members have pointed out that as members of parliament we travel a lot, as do so many of the public. So, not only those who send out cargo will be affected by delays and the cost of additional red tape. Members of the public will also become extremely frustrated. As we know, when people are at an airport , particularly if they are running a little bit late and their flight is not far off from leaving, they find it very difficult when they are selected to be screened by the Customs officials. This is the level of security that is now required in the world in which we live, and that in part underpins the need for this legislation.
We have to make sure that, in the future, all Australian air cargo meets the security arrangements and requirements for air cargo exports to the United States. This means that each individual box—a carton or any form of container—or any item has to be examined by technology. We have seen terrorists be particularly creative. When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, I saw some of the very creative improvised explosive devices that were being used there. They have an extremely creative capacity that we should not underestimate. We take the security of people and cargo very seriously, as we should. These are the very reasons why each of the containers has to be screened by technology or physically inspected before it is loaded onto a United States bound aircraft. This legislation supports our effort to meet the US security requirements. When I look at what is produced out of the south-west and goes not only interstate but around the world, I do not want to see any of those opportunities lost to producers or manufacturers in my part of the world or elsewhere in Australia.
There is a partnership that the government has with industry to implement these new security requirements. It will allow exporters to choose what is the most effective method for their particular businesses, and it will be different from business to business. Whether it is an approved examination away from the airport—but it will have to be approved—an approved freight-forwarding business or the establishment of a known consignor scheme that the export businesses can join, we need to make this as efficient as we can for the exporting businesses whilst meeting the requirements of US security. There are a number of businesses examining cargo at a piece-by-piece level with X-ray before it gets to the airport cargo terminal. Therefore, there is no need for screening at the airport itself.
The second part supported by sections in the amending legislation creates the legal authority for the establishment of the new known consignor scheme. Continuing to work with industry to try to limit the amount of costs, inconvenience and red tape while still meeting those security requirements is part of what we need to do to establish these particular protocols. The known consignor scheme is an internationally recognised method of meeting our air safety cargo requirements from the early part of the supply chain through to the ultimate loading onto an aircraft. I think we are all aware of the need for that level of security and transparency in the process and of the need to be accountable all the way along that particular chain. The scheme provides an alternative means of securing air cargo from unlawful interference, compared to examination using X-ray or other technologies. As I said earlier, there are very creative efforts in this space, so the need for very sound processes and very good technology is never more relevant than right now.
I had a look on the US site and I saw that their national strategy is for a global supply chain of security. Their two goals are to promote the efficient and secure movement of goods, which is what we are doing with this bill, and to foster a global supply chain system that is prepared for and can withstand evolving threats and hazards and can rapidly recover from any disruption. I think all of us in this place understand the great threat that the US faces. It is a primary target. Nothing made that more obvious to the world than 9/11, and wherever the US is around the world—whether it is an embassy, for instance, or an office—you will see a level of security that is possibly not replicated by other nations. The threat and risk to the US is that which we saw with 9/11. So, for our producers and manufacturers to continue to be able to export, we need the level of security provided by this particular bill. This is to make sure that the $4.8 billion worth of air freight that we export to the US can continue into the future.
In recognition of our national cargo security program, we have secured an agreement with the United States to extend that export to July 2017. This means simply that Australian cargo to the United States can continue without any disruption whilst transitioning to the new arrangements, and this is really important. We do not in any way want to interrupt businesses' existing arrangements, our existing export channels and the produce that is going out—the products, manufactured products and a whole raft of different products that are being exported to the US. There are many companies that are relying on a smooth transition, and the intention is that we certainly give them that opportunity throughout this process. The bill ensures that our air cargo security arrangements are consistent with the international standards that I spoke about earlier under the Chicago Convention. The strategy not only meets the requirements of the US; it meets any anticipated requirements of our trading partners. Given that we have concluded three free trade agreements, these will be particularly relevant and important ahead.
If the measures are not implemented, industry will have no choice about how to meet the new security requirements set out by the United States, as the Transportation Security Administration has made it very clear that it will not accept any air cargo exports unless all of it is screened at a piece-by-piece level. I do not think there is anyone who could question this, and I do not think any of us who get on aircraft at any time would have any issue with this level of screening and security. Even though MH17 was a different set of circumstances, and different, perhaps, from MH370, every time we see an incident like this—and we have seen too many of them—because we live in such a global environment, it is almost inevitable that there will be people from all over the world on that flight, and there is often an Australian as well. Irrespective of where people come from, we take their security very seriously, and all of us have noticed a greater expectation of government in regard to national security issues in recent times, not just in these last two weeks but in the whole period of a range of different terrorist attacks and threats.
I am very pleased to support this legislation. I commend the work of the minister and his people in this space. I recognise the additional issues facing business and industry in this space. We are working very hard to ensure that the cost and red tape are kept to a minimum whilst meeting all of the requirements that are needed to meet the export and security requirements of the United States. I commend the bill to be House.
I rise today to discuss the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015, the changes it proposes and its importance to the industry. I thank the member for Forrest for her contribution. As Western Australians we spend a lot of time at airports and travelling, so the security of airports and air cargo is very important to us and all other aviation travellers around the world. It is about knowing that the cargo in the planes we travel on is secure and safe and does not pose any threat.
The government has an ongoing and solid commitment to the safety and security of Australia's interests. We have developed a strong history of improving and maintaining Australia's international trade relationships and prospects. Although this bill is about safety and security, it also has a strong commitment to the economy, which is important to Australia because we are such an isolated country. Having an airport in my own electorate, I know how important it is to the economy in Western Australia. That is why we have seen this government continue to fund the Gateway upgrade. I see the former assistant minister for infrastructure is here. He was an important part of that and has visited the particular area many times. He knew how important it was to continue with that Gateway upgrade. The fact that we were able to do it without a mining tax was a credit to the government and the budget process that it put together to make sure that it continued the important work for the infrastructure around the Perth Airport.
The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015 is another step towards this and also ensures Australia's cargo security processes conform to international standards. I would like to provide the House with a brief history of Australia's air cargo security. Since 1996, we have had a number of arrangements in place to regulate and maintain the security of goods being transported as air cargo. In 2006, the Accredited Air Cargo Agent was established. This scheme provided more flexibility in the regulatory framework for any persons involved in the handling or transport arrangements for air cargo. However, since then, international law has continued to evolve and we need to adapt our legislation to ensure we remain compatible with international trade partners.
The bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 by developing a known consignor and a regulated agent and ensures our laws are consistent with Australia's obligations under annex 17 of the Chicago convention. Australia's airfreight export to the US is worth $4.8 billion. Despite international airfreight comprising 0.1 per cent of Australia's total merchandise trade by volume, it makes up more than 21 per cent of Australia's total trade by market value.
Just to support those figures, last week the committee I am involved with visited Melbourne Airport's cargo area. The staff spoke about 32 million passengers a year coming through there and also the fact that over 90 million packages arrive in Australia every year, which makes it very difficult to screen them. We were lucky enough to see a screening process performed. During that process some illegal substances coming into Australia were picked up. That is how important the screening process is in continuing to make sure that our security and safety is supported.
Over the next five years alone, Australia's outbound international airfreight is expected to increase at an annual rate of 4.1 per cent. It is a significant section of our trade market and now, following the implementation of this bill, will continue to function without disruption. The bill effectively establishes a regulatory framework which safeguards against unauthorised interference. It achieves this by imposing a number of obligations or requirements that need to be met by persons involved in or engaged with civil aviation related processes.
United States law requires 100 per cent of all air cargo on passenger flights to be examined at piece level. As we heard the member for Hughes explain before, that means that every carton, no matter whether it is sealed or part of a group, has to be taken apart and, regardless of weight or size, physically inspected or scanned by technology prior to being loaded on an aircraft bound for the United States. In a recent evaluation of Australia's air cargo security, the US found our arrangements fell short and did not meet the standards they require. It is imperative that we take urgent action to ensure this industry and its role in our economy are not interrupted.
Due to Australia's unique geography and the long distances between us and our trading partners, the air cargo industry remains a vital component of the broader industry. Small, medium and large businesses Australia-wide that are exporting to the US cover multiple industries and commodities, all of which will be impacted on greatly if these amendments are not implemented. Many exporting businesses across Australia would find significant difficulties in finding alternative routes to not only the US but other states that will require stricter regulation of air cargo security in the future. This would come at a detrimental cost to Australian businesses and, in turn, the Australian economy.
Another area of cost could be that of Australia's national security. The United States 9/11 act passed in 2007 saw the implementation of security screening on all air cargo carried domestically on passenger aircraft. In 2010, these requirements were extended to all international air cargo coming into the US. However, Australia was granted some lenience, allowing our exporters to operate in line with the air cargo security framework I mentioned previously. In 2014, the US re-evaluated its security arrangements for US-bound air cargo, and recommendations were made for all pieces to be examined. It is in response to these changes that these amendments are necessary. Also last year, the department, in consultation with stakeholders and intelligence agencies, prepared a security risk assessment of export air cargo in Australia and found that it could be a possible target.
In the current security climate, the use of improvised explosive devices—IEDs—is not unlikely. To prevent this and to further strengthen existing security measures, the amendments proposed in this bill are essential. The minister and his department have provided a two-year time frame in the amendments for the implementation of all changes. This will allow all parties involved in the industry or affected by the changes adequate time to adopt the new security measures outlined in this bill and, in turn, conform to the international standards required. The government has also secured a bilateral agreement with the US that will see our national cargo security program extended until 2017, effectively allowing transition to these arrangements without disruption.
The two-part strategy, as previously discussed by the minister, will see approved businesses given the ability to examine air cargo off airport. This element of the bill is already in the process of being implemented and, by all accounts, is working effectively. This process is legally recognised under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. All cargo examined through this process will not be subject to any further examination at cargo terminals at Australian airports.
The second, and perhaps the most important, element of the amendment bill is the development of a known consignor scheme under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. The amendment bill also introduces a definition of a 'known consignor'. For the benefit of the House, the known consignor scheme is an internationally recognised method of meeting air cargo security requirements. At the core of this scheme is the security of goods from the earliest points in the supply chain right up to their loading onto aircrafts. It is an international alternative to using X-ray technologies and the like to secure air cargo from interference.
This scheme effectively shifts the emphasis for practical implementation of security to the originator of the goods—that is, the shipper—very much like the trusted trader schemes that go on around the world. All goods are required to be produced, packaged and transported in a manner that ensures their security from unlawful interference from the point of origin and through every step until their delivery. Leading on from this, the amendments in this bill introduce an avoidance of doubt provision. In short, this will allow cargo to be opened or unpacked as part of the examination process. It is a clarification to the original bill and will ensure that it functions in line with the government's initial policy intention.
Not only will these amendments align Australia's air cargo security with international standards but they will also allow for a much more effective and highly efficient process for the industry and associated parties. They will also ensure that Australia is equipped to deal with emerging security risks in this particular industry. As mentioned previously, the amendments will see that our air cargo security arrangements are consistent with international standards under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Not only will they ensure that our laws conform to US requirements; they will anticipate requirements for other current and prospective trading partners. The amendments will effectively ensure continued and stable access to international markets and allow Australia to maintain its global competitiveness. Again, this is fundamental to the maintenance and growth of the industry, and it is another example of this government's commitment to furthering international trade and economic growth.
The Transport Security Administration of the United States has clearly outlined that it will not accept any air cargo that has not been subject to screening at piece level. The measures outlined in the bill are the most effective way possible to ensure that we conform to these requirements. I would like to see these amendments implemented in full to ensure the industry continues to meet international requirements and sees Australia at the forefront of air cargo security.
I am confident that the two-year time frame suggested by the minister will provide ample time for a transitionary period and encourage all parties to do what they can to adhere to the move towards international standards. I would like to thank the minister and his department for their efforts in the development of this amendment bill, and also, particularly, the shadow minister for his support. I support the proposed changes, and I am certain they will be of great benefit to the industry and hold us in good stead as a long-term, international trade partner.
I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. It is a very important issue. While I welcome the bipartisan support for the legislation and recognise that it is, therefore, uncontroversial, it is important. Whilst I wish that we were not in a position where it has become necessary for us to further update security requirements, in this particular instance, to maintain our trade with the United States, it is clearly essential that we accept this legislation and the burden on industry that inevitably results from regulation of this nature.
The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015 will ensure that Australian air cargo meets United States security requirements for air cargo exports to the US. The United States requires, by law, that all airlines transporting cargo to the US on passenger flights must examine 100 per cent of that air cargo at piece level. This means that every individual box, carton or other item in a shipment must be examined by technology or physically inspected before it is loaded onto a US-bound aircraft.
The US has recently re-evaluated Australia's air cargo security arrangements and determined that they do not meet US requirements. The amendments proposed in the bill support the government's strategy to meet the US security requirements, a strategy that will be implemented in partnership with industry. The strategy has two elements, allowing exporters to choose the most effective method for their businesses: off-airport examination of cargo by approved freight-forwarding businesses, and the establishment of a known consignor scheme that export businesses can join.
The first part of the strategy is already being implemented with a number of businesses examining cargo at piece level by X-ray before it gets to the airport cargo terminal, removing the need for screening at the airport. The second part is supported by the amendments in the bill. The amendments create the legal authority for the establishment of the known consignor scheme and clarify what is meant by cargo receiving clearance and being cleared for carriage through a secure supply chain. The known consignor scheme is an internationally recognised method of meeting air cargo security requirements, which focuses on ensuring the security of goods from early in the supply chain through to their ultimate loading onto an aircraft. It provides an alternative means of securing air cargo from unlawful interference compared to examinations using X-ray or other technology.
The amendments mean that Australia's $4.8 billion worth of airfreight exports to the United States can continue without disruption. The amendments also mean that Australia's air cargo security arrangements are consistent with international standards under the Chicago Convention. Therefore, the government's strategy not only meets US requirements but will meet any anticipated requirements of our trading partners. The government has an ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests. The government is also committed to maintaining and growing Australia's international trade, and this bill supports this commitment.
Again, I thank those who contributed to the debate for their contributions in relation to the importance of Australia's trade not only with the United States but around the world. While the vast majority of our trade and our freight is naturally carried by ship because we are an exporter of large volumes of freight, particularly minerals and agricultural products, there is an important and growing industry which relies on freight by air to meet markets in a timely way. This is particularly true in the areas of fruit and vegetables, fish, and other consumables, but it is also important for the supply of sophisticated parts and machinery—the sorts of things that keep business operating in a smooth and efficient way. So it is absolutely essential that we have an airfreight industry that is not only able to deliver on the task in the physical sense but able to meet the international requirements. The US have adopted standards. Those standards are at a level beyond what we have been used to but they are standards which we know we will need to meet in the future, and this legislation provides the framework to enable that to happen. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
In the last couple of weeks, I have had something of a baptism of fire as I have departed ever so slightly from the orthodoxy and recognised that we need to be prepared to talk about the costs and benefits of our vaccination system. Thankfully, though, my discussions with very senior and very committed medical specialists in the immunology area confirmed for me that they do not want to suppress debate; they want an open acknowledgement that there are risks and benefits associated with our vaccination system. They recognise that without that openness of dialogue we, in fact, feed paranoia and undermine public confidence in our system. They confirmed for me that we must allow full and transparent recording of the inevitable adverse events, and that we need to provide a system of compensation for those who have lost the lottery and suffered injury from vaccination.
There is a strong argument for most vaccinations that we need to protect herd immunity in respect of highly infectious diseases. So there is a very strong argument for, and very strong community benefit emerging from, a system of vaccination for highly infection diseases. But we must recognise that with that come the inevitable adverse consequences, and we must put in place a system that allows us to properly record those adverse events. I will leave to debate another day my concerns about the inadequacy of the system that we currently have, because today I want to talk about the need for a no-fault compensation.
I want to share a very tragic story from a Kalgoorlie family, the Hammonds. Tanya and Ben tell me this story. On 26 September 2013, James, their fourth son, was born eight weeks premature. Two days later, they were told that if they wished to have contact with their baby, they required an ADACEL vaccination. As Ben was a supervisor at a mine and had only a short space of time down in Perth, he had the shot immediately. Twelve days later, he was a complete quadriplegic.
Thanks to the staff at the Shenton Park rehabilitation hospital, he is now able to take steps—but he is still a very sick man. He has no bladder or bowel function, and he has limited liver and kidney function. Due to his condition, he is currently bedridden. Now, neither Tanya nor Ben can work. They have lost nearly everything and soon will lose their home. Tanya tells me there is no dispute that the injury was a rare result of a vaccination, and this has been confirmed by an immunologist at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. But they cannot establish the necessary negligence that is currently required to found a claim for compensation.
Our vaccination system is there to protect the community in general—to ensure that we have good herd immunity. We need to ensure that we have a system in place that recognises that there is a moral obligation on us, in those few and rare cases where we do have these severe adverse reactions, to ensure that those people have access to a compensation scheme without having to have recourse to a claim for negligence. We know that 19 countries around the world have accepted that society owes a duty of care and indeed of gratitude to those few individuals who have been damaged by a vaccine, and they have introduced no-fault compensation schemes. Germany, New Zealand, the United States, Britain and, indeed, most EU countries have such a compensation scheme. I see this as an issue of profound morality and fairness. In a vaccination program, the injured and the uninjured pay unequal shares of the social good of herd immunity. We can fix this and we must do it.
I rise tonight to speak and show my strong support for a proposal to build a state-of-the-art small-stock abattoir in the Bourke district in my electorate. This would be of great interest to people in your electorate as well, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Bourke has been chosen as the site for the development due to its location as a hub for the goat industry in New South Wales. Bourke Shire Council has been working closely with Capra Developments Pty Ltd for the past few months to assist with facilitating and expediting this project.
Capra Developments has extensive experience in the meat and associated industries and has expressed a very strong desire to have the facility up and running as soon as possible. Capra Developments has indicated that the project investment is approximately $60 million, and it will deliver a best-practice meat processing facility to the Bourke region, focused on marketing goat, sheep and lamb products to a range of well-established export markets and customers. It is anticipated that the abattoir will have a capacity of over 4,000 head of small stock per day, and it is expected to make substantial economic gains for the community and primary producers across the Bourke region. There should be a significant number of employment opportunities—estimated at 200 full-time equivalent positions—as well as a number of other indirect employment opportunities.
These employment opportunities are greatly needed in the Bourke district. They will assist with overcoming the social disadvantage that has resulted from minimal employment opportunities due to severe drought and population decline. This has adversely impacted on the community over the past few decades, particularly with water reform and the citrus and horticultural industries closing down in Bourke having led to substantial levels of permanent unemployment. The Bourke Aboriginal working party has also expressed major support for the abattoir proposal, as it would not only boost the economy of the region but also provide significant employment opportunities for those within the community who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. Many of these people are, unfortunately, of Aboriginal descent.
Capra Developments Pty Ltd have secured suitable land for the construction of the abattoir about 16 kilometres north of Bourke and are working with Bourke Shire Council in relation to the infrastructure requirements to enable the project to proceed as expeditiously as possible. Bourke Shire Council has submitted an application for funding under round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund to assist in the construction of the infrastructure. I strongly support this proposal, and it ties in with a lot of other work that the federal government is doing in that area through Work for the Dole programs and Green Army programs, which I have visited in that area and which are employing young unemployed people in the Bourke and Brewarrina districts.
It also ties in with the Clontarf Foundation, who are encouraging young Aboriginal boys to stay at school, complete their schooling and gain a level of education that would enable them to undertake meaningful employment. An extra 200 jobs in the Bourke area—permanent, meaningful jobs—would be also very much appreciated.
It also ties in with the large number of feral goats that are currently in western New South Wales and, indeed, in southern Queensland. This would provide value-adding for this resource which is largely being shipped off to Victoria for processing, and it meets the high demand that we see for goat meat, particularly from markets in the Middle East and growing markets in Australia. This is a very worthwhile project and it has my complete and full support.
My electorate of Melbourne has more public housing than any other electorate in the country. Public housing is full of vibrant communities and great people who help to make Melbourne such a great place to live. I cannot imagine Melbourne without the contribution of its many residents living in public housing. But the public housing system is in crisis. People living in public housing in my electorate face poor maintenance and inadequate government action on safety. Waiting lists are out of control. With rising house prices putting private rental out of reach, over 34,000 people are on the public housing waiting list in Victoria. People in desperate need of secure housing are facing waiting times of many years. And the number of people on the urgent waiting list has increased under the state Andrews Labor government. After 12 months of inaction from state Labor, it is time for urgent action to fix public housing.
Since I was elected in 2010, around 600 people have approached me in my office for assistance with public housing. More people come to me for help with public housing than for any other issue. Most people who come to me are either experiencing homelessness or living in inappropriate housing and are in urgent need of a secure home in public housing. But, because governments have failed to invest in public housing, people facing a housing crisis are told that they just have to wait.
Over half of the complaints I have raised with the Victorian government are about overcrowding. Hundreds of Melbourne residents have come to me because their families are forced to live in apartments that were designed for many fewer people. In just the last two weeks, my office and that of my state colleague Ellen Sandell have spoken with at least eight families who are living in overcrowded apartments in Melbourne. In one case, eight people were living in a two-bedroom apartment. In another, 10 people making up two families were living together in a three-bedroom apartment—all because one of these families had nowhere else to go but the street. This is a common occurrence—people who are otherwise homeless being forced to couch surf or rely on the goodwill of people who are in some form of secure housing. How are children supposed to do their homework in such a crowded apartment? What happens when a child becomes sick, when there are eight people living in a two-bedroom apartment?
Other Melbourne constituents are facing health problems because crowded apartments are poorly ventilated and developing mould. Doctors have told me that children have developed asthma because of these conditions. We are making our children sick because of the conditions in public housing. But when my constituents seek a transfer to a home that is safe for their family, they are told that they will be waiting for up to 10 years. Meanwhile, public areas are neglected. Lifts break down, forcing residents to climb to their apartment—in some cases 20 storeys! Systems to collect rubbish have failed, leading to poor hygiene. Rats and other pests are found in buildings. When I walk through the flats in Flemington near my house I see the rats, especially at dusk, scurrying off to get into the drains. There have been stories of floods in buildings and burst pipes that were left unaddressed.
With no air conditioning for most residents, in summer, temperatures in these concrete block apartments soar above 50 degrees, and it can stay hot—above 30 or 40 degrees overnight—because the buildings retain the heat. During the 2014 heatwave, many Flemington residents came down and slept on the nearby oval because their houses were too hot. Residents tell me about their safety fears in public spaces and about people visiting estates to buy and use drugs. One four-year-old child pricked her hand on a syringe left among sheets in a laundry basin. She had to undergo a blood test to confirm she had not contracted a disease.
Residents in Melbourne's public housing have been let down by Liberal and Labor. For too long, governments have failed to invest in maintenance, security and new public housing stock. Instead of investing in the public housing we need, Liberal and Labor governments have sold off public housing assets or areas to private developers, leaving fewer public housing homes on smaller areas of land and forcing some residents to leave their community. Now, one year on from the election of the Labor government in Victoria, things are getting worse for public housing residents, not better. After 12 months and no action, it is not good enough to blame previous governments. The Andrews Labor government must take responsibility.
The Greens have a plan to fix public housing and a plan for housing affordability. We will create a fund to support resident-driven security measures and build more public housing. It is time to fix it. Labor, let us see some action.
Tomorrow is White Ribbon Day—a national day of action urging each of us to stand up and speak out against family violence, and specifically violence by men against women and children. I want to acknowledge from the outset that men are also victims of domestic violence, but the fact remains that the vast majority of victims are women and children.
Tonight, a 10-month-old baby is in an induced coma suffering burns to 40 per cent of his tiny body after being left in a hot shower. Tonight, there would be hundreds if not thousands of women and children fleeing family violence. Many would be in hospital recovering from injuries. And in some place, somewhere, right now, it is likely that a woman is under grave threat of being killed.
In Australia this year, 78 women have been killed at the hands of a current or former partner or family member, on average more than one death a week. Since her beloved son, Luke, was killed by his father, our Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, has campaigned tirelessly for change, for more funding, for action, standing up and speaking out against this dreadful evil. I still fight back tears when I drive over the West Gate Bridge. How a father could throw his beautiful daughter off the bridge to her death is beyond horror. I feel the same sickness as I drive past the place near Winchelsea, where a father drove his three young boys into a dam, to their death.
Two months ago, our government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, announced a $100 million women's safety package, with more funding to support women and children to stay safe in their homes. For our government, combating family violence is a national priority, because, for so many women and children out there who are trapped in a cycle of violence and oppression and fear, this is a national emergency.
Tonight I want to speak about Monique Denahy. She was 49, beautiful, vivacious, gentle and kind. She was always laughing, always positive. She grew up in a beautiful family in Geelong—our families were close—and Monique was and remained a very close friend to my sister Jodie.
Three days ago, Monique was murdered by her American partner in the US. It was a deliberate, calculated murder/suicide. Monique had decided to leave the relationship and return to Australia—but she never made it home.
I do not want to speak about the detail other than to say Monique's parents Faye and Frank who both live in Corangamite—and her beloved children Sam and Zara—are devastated and shattered beyond words. This is a crime which always happens to someone else; but Monique's death has shown me that this is a crime that can touch every single family. Our family is devastated by this news—and our hearts go out to Sam, Zara, Faye, Frank, Tony, Jeremy, Sally, Paula, Johnnie and the rest of Monique's family and friends.
We have to break this cycle of violence, which in many cases is being fuelled by drugs, alcohol, rage, revenge—and perverse attitudes by men who think it is okay to hurt a woman. We all have a responsibility to educate young people—and Our Watch survey found that one in four young men believe controlling and violent behaviour is a sign of male strength.
I say to all Australians: tomorrow wear your white ribbon, take the pledge and please stand up and speak out against family violence. Monique, you were a beautiful and gentle soul. Rest in peace.
Under indulgence, I would like to thank the member for Corangamite for her moving speech. I join with her in our pride to be Victorian and to know that in our state the issues of family violence are taken very seriously.
But I rise this evening to speak about water in South Western Victoria. Chances are that members of this House have eaten the quality produce from Werribee South in the electorate of Lalor—the broccoli, the lettuce, the cauliflower. Farmers in Werribee South need a reliable and sustainable water supply. The farmers in my community are paying the highest price for water in the state. As I said in October in this place, the aged infrastructure is currently losing around 35 to 40 per cent of the water sent down the irrigation channels. That is about 40 per cent of water that could go back into the system to boost allocations for farmers and provide much needed environmental flows for the lower Werribee River.
In the electorate of Lalor, market gardeners have relied on a shandy of river water from river and recycled water from the nearby Western Treatment Plant to continue to grow the food that we put on our tables every night. The annual turnover by these farmers is estimated to be over $100 million a year, with the industry employing an estimated 1,000 people every day. These are all things that the Minister for Trade Andrew Robb knows, as he visited the local business Fresh Select in August to praise them for their operation and planned exports to China. And he referred to their great work in a Press Club speech on 12 August and in question time that week.
I first raised this issue in this place in October, having met with key stakeholders who know how important water is for this community, for the state of Victoria and for Australia as a nation. One such stakeholder, Southern Rural Water, has a plan to pipe the leaking open channels that carry river and recycled water to the area.
I recently attended a very positive meeting with the Victorian Department for Environment, Land, Water and Planning to discuss the issues and my concerns. They indicated an interest in communicating with the federal government about the Southern Rural Water proposal and the needs of the Werribee Irrigation District.
I note that the federal Water Infrastructure Ministerial Working Group earmarked the Werribee Irrigation District as a potential project, for which more information is needed from the state government for categorisation. I would urge the Minister for Agriculture to utilise the channels developed by his ministerial water working group so the state government can provide information on the updated proposal for his consideration.
Last week I met with more local farmers who are incensed and desperate for high-quality water at a competitive price so that their industry can continue to operate. Given Werribee South's location to nearby Avalon Airport and the export opportunities already taken by groups like Fresh Select, there is an opportunity for the federal government to help fund modernisation for the area. I urge this government to do so. Given limited rainfall on the horizon and the looming consequences of climate change, the need to save every drop of water is paramount and the need to ensure this industry is paramount.
In October I sent a letter to the minister, which, according to his staff, was never received. I have again sent a letter requesting a meeting with the minister regarding the Werribee Irrigation District. The momentum from growers and other stakeholders is building. Minister Joyce, the ball is now in your court; I call on you to arrange that meeting. Werribee, indeed the South West, needs water security and a fair price, and the federal government is in a position to help us achieve this. I go to a precedent, where in recent history the Australian government contributed $10 million towards the cost of recycled water infrastructure for the Torquay growth corridor. This is recent history; the precedent is set. I urge this government and the minister to act now to ensure our farmers in the South West are competitive. They require water availability, sustainability and a competitive price. These farmers are now generational; they are supplying vegetables to this nation and would like to build their export industry. I urge the government to act.
Kyogle is known for its community spirit, so when the 2015 Brown & Hurley golf tournament was played earlier this month it was no surprise that over 300 players came to support local charities. This year the tournament raised over $27,000 for local charities. The recipients were the Kyogle Lions Club, Kyogle SES, the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter, Kyogle Golf Club, Northern Rivers Care Connections, Kyogle Youth Ventures, Jodie's Inspiration, Kyogle Preschool and Kyogle Citizens Brass Band. Jim and Clare Hurley ran this event for 40 years, but stepped aside two years ago and handed the reins over to Jim's brother, Kevin, who organises the event with his wife, Colleen. Colleen dedicated herself to the event, arranging great prizes and donations for the day. Many of the staff in the Kyogle office also generously gave their time to help make this event a success. Kyogle player Dave Walters claimed the overall honours this year, scoring 41. Other winners included Paul Hurley and Mary Garred on Wednesday and Laurie Tillman and Tracey Simpson on Thursday. Winners of the raffle, sponsored by Engel fridges and Xray Vision were Grant Trott and Barry O'Sullivan. I thank everyone who was involved in raising that money to help local charities.
Four girls from the Lower Clarence Rowing and Sculling Club have been selected to participate in a seven-day tour of New Zealand to compete in the Waikato Christmas Regatta on Lake Karapiro. Leaving Australia early next month will be Crystal Piper, Gemma Dane, Clare Samms and Teagan McFarlane, who are part of a team of 10 girls competing for the Commercial Rowing Club in combined crews. They will compete in three events of 2,000 metres. The Maclean girls have been competing in crews with the Commercial Rowing Club in the recent Tweed Heads regatta at Murwillumbah, with CRC member Peter Toon confident the tour will result in many top-three positions. The girls coach on the Lower Clarence, Harold Kratz, told one of my local papers—TheDaily Examinerthat it was an exciting opportunity for them to row against world class competition. He said:
It's a big standard, they're going up against some top New Zealand rowers of their age.
Mr Kratz is confident that after a successful afternoon rowing with the CRC the Maclean girls will come home with some podium finishes. While on their tour, the girls will visit the New Zealand High Performance Rowing Centre as special guests of the head coach of New Zealand rowing, Noel Donaldson, to experience firsthand the facilities used by professionals. Good luck, girls.
This weekend three young hockey players from Grafton—Michael Wright, Ellynie Cameron and Abe Herbert—will travel to Perth to play for the New South Wales Bushrangers team at an international tournament. The Bushrangers is one of the best development teams in New South Wales, taking the best players from across the state. Having been selected Michael, Ellynie and Abe will all receive their own unique number and will be able to play with the team until they turn 18. Ellynie, aged 15, plays locally for McAuley Catholic College. She played with the Bushrangers earlier this year when they toured Japan in April. Abe, 15, plays for Sailors under16s and was in the winning Grafton under 15s state representative team this year. He was named player of the tournament and was selected in the under18s New South Wales squad for 2016. He is now part of the Athletics Acceleration Program with Hockey New South Wales for 2015-2016. Michael, also 15, plays for City Bears under 16s, as well as C and B grade men's teams. He was also in the wining Grafton under 15s representative team. Both Abe and Michael were selected by team manager Brad Martin from the representative tournament played in Grafton earlier this year. I would also like to take this opportunity to mention Siobhan Hoy, who was also selected to play but due to health reasons is unable to. She toured Japan with Ellynie in April this year. I wish them all the very best.
Two months ago I spoke about the funding changes former arts minister George Brandis introduced. Those changes took $104.7 million from the independent Australia Council. It put those funds into a slush fund that left decisions on who receives funding to the minister. The Australia Council is well regarded and ensures that decisions are made at arms-length from government and by those involved in the arts who have the appropriate knowledge to make those decisions. Decisions have been made in this way for decades and the consensus is that this system is fair and it works.
We should not underestimate the importance of the arts to our community and our society. The arts reflect and create our culture and enrich our communities. That is why I held the Shine the Light on Arts Forum in my own electorate where many local organisations and creative workers came to tell of their concerns and the impact these changes will have on them. While Senator Brandis is no longer minister and the government has redesigned the policy as a result of pressure from the arts community and from Labor, it is still bad policy. It is bad for the arts in Australia. Under the new leadership of Minister Fifield, changes have been made to return $32 million to the Australia Council. However, we now have a mish-mash of organisations making funding decisions with some funds returned to the Australia Council and there are still substantial funds in the ministerial slush fund of the NPEA and the new Catalyst organisation. This is not only confusing but it will also ensure the fracturing of funding with one organisation not having oversight. In addition, the new system will make the application and award process more expensive and time consuming, further impeding the development of the creative arts in this country and alienating those working in creative industries.
Beyond Empathy is the sort of organisation that will suffer from these changes. It is dedicated to improving the lives of disadvantaged young Australians through the use of creative and performing arts. The organisation has developed the Mubali Project, a program that connects Indigenous teenage mothers to antenatal care. This is done in conjunction with the services they provide as an arts organisation and the funding they receive from the Australia Council. Another example is the physical theatre company Legs on the Wall, who represented Australia at the London and Beijing Olympics, who would be bereft without funding from the Australia Council.
This country is suffering from a funding drought for creative projects and organisations and it is only getting worse. Without proper funding, projects like Mubali and organisations like Legs on the Wall will simply disappear. Australia needs creative independence, but the process is being purposely stifled by the current position. Funding needs to be provided objectively across the board on a case-by-case basis, where organisations and individuals are given equal consideration and it is not decided on the whim of a minister. These changes are caustic to the creative community. I support the arts community both in the inner west and throughout Australia in calling for them to be reversed. The government has gone a bit of the way—they need to go all of the way and restore the proper funding to the appropriate body, the Australia Council.
House adjourned at 21:30